26001|25950|2011-06-22 13:13:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:24:45AM -0700, Aaron wrote: > 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. Ah - I see I'd misread it. Thanks for the correction, Aaron! In any case, that's a huge amount of storage. I asked one of the vendors of these systems a while ago about what they would recommend to power a 45', 22000lb boat, and they suggested a motor for which they recommended a 400AH bank. Even converting the above to 48 volts, which would cut the available amperage by a factor of 4, still leaves you with over 2kW - i.e., 5 times the recommended storage for the above boat. In fact, given that removing the engine, transmission, the 2 50 gallon fuel tanks, and all the associated pumps, filters, etc. would lighten that boat by almost 2000 lbs., there's plenty of available space and weight for a second bank of the same size - although I'd think that at that point, a bigger motor would make a good bit of sense. 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| 26002|25950|2011-06-22 13:50:25|Matt Malone|Re: electric motors?|After someone mentioned Nickel-Iron batteries, I did some googling, and reading, and price inquires. This 12V HuP battery: SO-6-85-17 $2856 845 Ah 742 pounds Compares to a Nickel Iron battery: 7017 $7060 854Ah 860 pounds on this pricelist: http://www.beutilityfree.com/pdf_files/NiFeFlyer.pdf from this supplier: http://www.beutilityfree.com/Electric/Ni-Fe from this main page: http://www.nickel-iron-battery.com/ Hummm.... a battery guaranteed for 7 years, or a battery that will likely last 40 or 50 years... for 2.5x the price. Before spending $3,000 I would look at the $7000 option that lasts longer, and contains no acid. And a battery vs. fuel -- these batteries contain about as much energy as one kilogram of gasoline, or about the amount of useful work that comes out of about 5-6 kg of gasoline. Hummmm where to find space for that. I note that the SO-6-85-17 battery has a density of only about 2.6, or only 1.6 greater than water as its margin over buoyancy. Cement has a density of 2.4, iron is 7.2, and lead is 11.36, tungsten is 19.25. for a margin over buoyancy of 1.4, 6.2, 10.36 and 18.25 respectively. This is why iron ballast is far superior to cement, so much so that people throw as much scrap iron into their cement ballast as possible. Lead and tungsten each provide a significant step improvement. At a density of 2.6, that battery would be lousy ballast. If one removed the ballast and put the battery in, it would significantly raise a boat's center of mass, reducing one's margin for stability and recovery. One would have to retain most if not all of the ballast, and mount the battery as low as possible, suffer the added weight when it comes to performance. One will likely have to accept that it probably won't fit in a keel-well which means it will likely stand higher than the center of mass of the boat and therefore one will probably see at least some reduction in stability in any case. A boat is a whole system. Be careful what large parts one thinks to replace. If one is looking to save money and do not care much for stability, then use a cement ballasted boat (with a lot of scrap iron) and put the difference in cost between lead and cement into more sails, or the cruising kitty. No, Brent's boats are not designed for cement, but, if one is welding it up from scratch, the changes would not be that significant. Yes, I know, use wheel weights for ballast, for free. Right. How many people have gotten all their ballast for free as wheel weights ? Not that many, so, I expect purchased cement would be cheaper even with some free lead. Even if we do talk of free lead, then it is fair to talk about free cement -- "acquiring" left-over bags from construction sites etc... How many wheel weights does it take to have the same weight in ballast as one semi-hard 80 pound bag of cement ? A lot.... Bottom line, even lead batteries are not ballast. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:24:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 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]| 26003|25950|2011-06-22 14:25:41|Barney Treadway|Re: electric motors?|I'm now intrigued by the logical and sensible sounding idea of combining ballast and battery. Why carry around tons lead you can't use and then compromise like crazy to get more lead onto the boat that you can use? Built in or a modified bilge area seems easy enough for the steel benders in this group. So many people can't even use their wind generators all the time because they can't catch the power its making. On 6/22/2011 11:11 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:24:45AM -0700, Aaron wrote: > > 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. > > Ah - I see I'd misread it. Thanks for the correction, Aaron! > > In any case, that's a huge amount of storage. I asked one of the vendors > of these systems a while ago about what they would recommend to power a > 45', 22000lb boat, and they suggested a motor for which they recommended > a 400AH bank. Even converting the above to 48 volts, which would cut the > available amperage by a factor of 4, still leaves you with over 2kW - > i.e., 5 times the recommended storage for the above boat. > > In fact, given that removing the engine, transmission, the 2 50 gallon > fuel tanks, and all the associated pumps, filters, etc. would lighten > that boat by almost 2000 lbs., there's plenty of available space and > weight for a second bank of the same size - although I'd think that at > that point, a bigger motor would make a good bit of sense. > > 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 > > -- ---- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26004|25950|2011-06-22 14:43:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:25:37PM -0600, Barney Treadway wrote: > I'm now intrigued by the logical and sensible sounding idea of combining > ballast and battery. Why carry around tons lead you can't use and then > compromise like crazy to get more lead onto the boat that you can use? > Built in or a modified bilge area seems easy enough for the steel > benders in this group. So many people can't even use their wind > generators all the time because they can't catch the power its making. That's one of the first things that attracted me to forklift batteries. If you get a good deal on a used one - and there are lots of them out there - then it looks like a nearly infinite power sink to a source like a wind generator or a solar panel, and they work at max efficiency all the time. In the various off-grid groups, there are people talking about having bought an entire forklift power unit for around $300. That's about 2000 lbs. of batteries (one guy got a brand-new set because the fork lift at his company got wrecked.) 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| 26005|25950|2011-06-22 15:47:27|Aaron|Re: electric motors?|Just questions I have herd. One will still have to charge the batteries. If you wanted to go up the intercoastal waterway can you sail ? I am sure there are place one could stop for a charge.  Batteries will only buck the tide for so long when the wind dies. The tide where I am at is in the 3 to 4 knot range. Solar is limited to sunshine what about clowdy days. Full batteries last longer than 90% charged batteries but that last 10% takes longer to charge than the first 40%.   ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, June 22, 2011 10:43:16 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:25:37PM -0600, Barney Treadway wrote: > I'm now intrigued by the logical and sensible sounding idea of combining > ballast and battery. Why carry around tons lead you can't use and then > compromise like crazy to get more lead onto the boat that you can use? > Built in or a modified bilge area seems easy enough for the steel > benders in this group. So many people can't even use their wind > generators all the time because they can't catch the power its making. That's one of the first things that attracted me to forklift batteries. If you get a good deal on a used one - and there are lots of them out there - then it looks like a nearly infinite power sink to a source like a wind generator or a solar panel, and they work at max efficiency all the time. In the various off-grid groups, there are people talking about having bought an entire forklift power unit for around $300. That's about 2000 lbs. of batteries (one guy got a brand-new set because the fork lift at his company got wrecked.) 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] | 26006|25950|2011-06-22 17:31:37|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:47:26PM -0700, Aaron wrote: > Just questions I have herd. > One will still have to charge the batteries. This is one of the places where conversion factors work _for_ you rather than against you. If you're plugged into a 50A circuit, even a power supply with 80% efficiency will give you 400A at 12V at max draw. That would charge up a bank pretty fast. > If you wanted to go up the > intercoastal waterway can you sail ? For some of it, sure. A very large chunk of North Carolina, for example - just the place where you normally want to avoid going off-shore (behind Cape Hatteras and such.) For the rest of it, it's pretty much plain sailing out in the ocean. Of course, if you want a powerboat - i.e., you want to motor all up and down the ICW - the economics would be different. But I've already met two electric powerboats that do exactly that. > The tide where I am at is in the 3 to 4 knot range. I try not to sail against the tide, myself. I'm not sure why you'd want to motor against it, either. Anchoring and waiting for it to turn would work a lot better - whether you're sailing, burning diesel, or using an e-drive. > Solar is limited to sunshine > what about clowdy days. Wind generators? I think you're visualizing a scenario that's sorta tuned for this not to work: motoring against the tide every day without a dock recharge is not reasonable. I don't know of anyone who would pay for fuel to do that, either. The typical reasonable scenario implies prudent, intelligent seamanship. A number of electric boaters don't go to the dock at all, because their cruising includes enough days at anchor to easily recharge their banks; some dock occasionally and "reload". It's all budgeting of a sort, and you have to work out what is reasonable for your type of cruising. If you want to go 50kt through 8' seas and then recharge for a few minutes off a 10W solar panel, that's just not going to work. :) > Full batteries last longer than 90% charged batteries > but that last 10% takes longer to charge than the first 40%.   That's what they say. It's wrong - AGM batteries, for example, have excellent uptake all the way to the top, and so do a few other types - but that _is_ what they say. :) 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| 26007|25950|2011-06-22 18:44:29|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Compares to a Nickel Iron battery: > > 7017 $7060 > 854Ah > 860 pounds > > on this pricelist: http://www.beutilityfree.com/pdf_files/NiFeFlyer.pdf > from this supplier: http://www.beutilityfree.com/Electric/Ni-Fe > from this main page: http://www.nickel-iron-battery.com/ > Looks like this Nickel Iron battery is the type I was trying to find (tall and has "one cell" design)- easy to replace if one cell goes bad...| 26008|25950|2011-06-22 22:27:12|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|Unfortunately, Ni-Fe batteries have its own limitations (as others battery types) if you look at NiFe specs and charts :( http://www.microsec.net/Solar%20Nickel%20Iron%20battery.pdf Limited manufacturers - it would be hard to find it at surplus communication, military or industrial auctions (for affordable price). Unless someone can come up with simple DIY Ni-Fe battery (some info) http://ps-survival.com/PS/Batteries/NiMH/Iron-Nickel_Battery_2008.pdf it might be not very economical solution at this time...| 26009|25950|2011-06-22 22:38:35|Kenneth Long|Re: electric motors?|There's a reason most major manufacturers are not in the USA. Exide did a good job at squashing competition with fear propaganda and ensnaring repeat business with lead acid batteries. "Edison's batteries were made from about 1903 to 1972 by the Edison Battery Storage Company located in East Orange, NJ. They were quite profitable for the company. In 1972 the battery company was sold to the Exide Battery Corporation, which discontinued making the battery in 1975." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-iron_battery Some other info, with a list of suppliers at the bottom http://www.nickel-iron-battery.com/ --- On Wed, 6/22/11, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:27 PM   Unfortunately, Ni-Fe batteries have its own limitations (as others battery types) if you look at NiFe specs and charts :( http://www.microsec.net/Solar%20Nickel%20Iron%20battery.pdf Limited manufacturers - it would be hard to find it at surplus communication, military or industrial auctions (for affordable price). Unless someone can come up with simple DIY Ni-Fe battery (some info) http://ps-survival.com/PS/Batteries/NiMH/Iron-Nickel_Battery_2008.pdf it might be not very economical solution at this time... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26010|25950|2011-06-22 22:56:10|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|I once saw plans for a 30 footer which had 3,000 lbs of framing, and 1/8th inch plate, which weighs the same as 3/8th plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? I once saw a powerboat under construction, made out of 1/8th plate ,with enough framing to make it the same weight as 1/4 inch plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? Which would be more forgiving in terms of corrosion? Most boats the size of my 36 use 1/8th inch plate, and lots of framing. I've seen several which had rusted out, which would have had many more years in them , had they been 3/16th plate. When you are pounding on a lee shore , on rocks , and a sharp rock hits between frames , the frame increases the odds of holing. Only thicker plate will save you there. Frames ,in that situation, are a liability. Longitudinals contribute far more to strength than transverse frames. Shape contributes far more to strength than transverse frames. Most structural boat calculations either don't take shape into consideration , or undervalue it, which is why they produce extremely labour intensive, expensive and overweight boats. Origami boats take full advantage of shape, and longitudinals. Fibreglass boats also take full advantage of shape, thus eliminating the need for frames. Which is tougher , fibreglass or steel? . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > 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 > ich woudk be tougher? > > > ________________________________ > 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] > | 26011|25950|2011-06-22 23:00:34|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|People go insane in herds, led by the herd mentality, and only return to sanity, individually. Cowards fear not being a member of "Mass Groupthink." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 26012|25950|2011-06-22 23:55:51|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|Yeah... It is very sad that this NiFe battery technology did not get any major improvement - still almost the same as original design. I like metal battery's case in original design, now it is made from plastic. I found only one USA manufacturer (if that company really make its batteries in USA). Even with existing limitations of this battery type, it could be a good choice for a boat if price was more affordable. There is very interesting reading about test results of OLD ORIGINAL Nickel-Iron batteries. http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2011/DeMarPaperDONE2011BU_21.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Long wrote: > > There's a reason most major manufacturers are not in the USA. > > Exide did a good job at squashing competition with fear propaganda and ensnaring repeat business with lead acid batteries. > | 26013|26013|2011-06-23 06:00:37|ANDREW AIREY|electric motors|I don't see why you couldn't accomodate a forktruck battery into a keel if thought desireable.My recollection of forktruck batteries from some years ago is that,unlike automotive batteries,they are constructed of individual replaceable cells,typical dimensions 8"square by 2ft deep.Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in.Incidentally,has anyone tried to build a power battery from scratch.I know it's not worth it for a starter battery,but it might be for a big job. cheers andy airey| 26014|26013|2011-06-23 06:35:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors|On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:00:35AM +0100, ANDREW AIREY wrote: > > I don't see why you couldn't accomodate a forktruck battery into a > keel if thought desireable.My recollection of forktruck batteries from > some years ago is that,unlike automotive batteries,they are > constructed of individual replaceable cells,typical dimensions > 8"square by 2ft deep. Yep. That's one of the big advantages of these. Most of them are soldered together, but some (like the SunOne battery I cited) are made with mechanical connections, which makes them much easier to replace as well as move around in the first place. > Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of > construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the > drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in. *Nice* idea. I don't know if the motor would actually be useful in the marine application, but kudos for at least thinking about it - I missed that idea completely. 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| 26015|25891|2011-06-23 09:47:59|Shane Duncan|BS 31 off the west Australian coast|A picture of my first sail in my BS 31 off  the west Australian coast Great day [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26016|25950|2011-06-23 11:09:56|James Pronk|Re: electric motors?|Brent I guess you saw what had happened after the Vancouver Stanley Cup loss! James --- On Wed, 6/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 11:00 PM   People go insane in herds, led by the herd mentality, and only return to sanity, individually. Cowards fear not being a member of "Mass Groupthink." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26017|26013|2011-06-23 11:18:09|kingsknight4life|electric motors|> > Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of > > construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the > > drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in. > > *Nice* idea. I don't know if the motor would actually be useful in the > marine application, but kudos for at least thinking about it - I missed > that idea completely. > Don't forklifts also contain huge amounts of lead to counterbalance them? You could use the lead to ballast the boat too. :)| 26018|25891|2011-06-23 11:22:52|kingsknight4life|Re: BS 31 off the west Australian coast|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > A picture of my first sail in my BS 31 off  the west Australian coast > Great day > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Shane, that's awesome,congrats on getting to enjoy the results of you hard work. She looks awesome. Please post more pics when you get the chance. (lol. It motivates us that are "stuck" in the building stage)| 26019|25891|2011-06-23 11:31:23|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: BS 31 off the west Australian coast|Where ? > A picture of my first sail in my BS 31 off the west Australian coast > Great day > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26020|26013|2011-06-23 11:31:24|Doug Jackson|Re: electric motors|Some of the really old ones did. I got 400 pounds from one, but all of the newer forklifts use iron weights just like tractors. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: kingsknight4life To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 10:18:08 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re:electric motors > > Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of > > construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the > > drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in. > > *Nice* idea. I don't know if the motor would actually be useful in the > marine application, but kudos for at least thinking about it - I missed > that idea completely. > Don't forklifts also contain huge amounts of lead to counterbalance them? You could use the lead to ballast the boat too. :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26021|26013|2011-06-23 11:35:44|Doug Jackson|Re: electric motors|Oh, but you can find good electric motors and controllers on electric forklifts. Some are DC with pulse width modulation and others AC with frequency controllers. There is good info about these on the Electric Vehicle sites. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: kingsknight4life To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 10:18:08 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re:electric motors > > Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of > > construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the > > drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in. > > *Nice* idea. I don't know if the motor would actually be useful in the > marine application, but kudos for at least thinking about it - I missed > that idea completely. > Don't forklifts also contain huge amounts of lead to counterbalance them? You could use the lead to ballast the boat too. :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26022|26013|2011-06-23 11:36:07|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: electric motors|Not sure about the forklifts, but the little electric trucks, about 1.5 m square, we used to drag Mig 21s with, weighed about 3 metric tons, or 3000 kg, or 8 imperial tons. They just had a big battery for mass. Of course, they did not lift anything, and were not exactly fast. About 20 km/hr as I recall. A fuelled Mig has a mass of 7100 kg, give or take. > > > Don't forklifts also contain huge amounts of lead to counterbalance > them? You could use the lead to ballast the boat too. :) > > __ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26023|26013|2011-06-23 12:18:11|wild_explorer|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, ANDREW AIREY wrote: > > I don't see why you couldn't accomodate a forktruck battery into a >keel if thought desireable.My recollection of forktruck batteries from >some years ago is that,unlike automotive batteries,they are >constructed of individual replaceable cells,typical dimensions >8"square by 2ft deep. It requires REALLY good planning. The widest part of the keel is needed for main part of the ballast. If I use steel plates as ballast, there is NO room inside the keel left for the batteries. It is possible to use bulb in the keel to compensate vertical center of gravity because of battery installation though... Tween keels do not have enough space for batteries and batteries will be 20-25 deg (or more when boat heels) off vertical. Single keel, I suspect, is about 8-10" in WIDEST part?. Making more than 1 layer of batteries in the keel is not practical - need to maintain batteries. So, only reasonable place to put batteries in this case would be the top of the keel. In case of acid-flooded batteries (forklift, etc) you need to make sealed compartment vented to atmosphere to prevent acid spills, vapors and Hydrogen (fire/explosion hazard) entering to living space. Plus you have to plan where to make water tank (or put batteries on the top of it in sealed compartment). >Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of construction,used it to >build the boat, then used the battery and the drive motor in the boat >and weighed the rest in.Incidentally,has anyone tried to build a power >battery from scratch.I know it's not worth it for a starter >battery,but it might be for a big job. > cheers > andy airey > It is good idea IF you can find electrical forklift for sale cheap. I just took a look what inventory industrial auction have in our area - only forklifts powered by CNG :(( So, it will very depend what you can find nearby.... You might find industrial electric carts (source of batteries, motor, transmission) in some areas.| 26024|26013|2011-06-23 14:58:06|David Frantz|Re: electric motors|The problem I see with buying an electric forklift with this intention is that most of them I've seen are not exactly outdoor vehicles. Using an electric forklift outside might be more frustrating than it is worth. As to batteries & boats don't for get about the smaller walk behind or ride on pallet movers. These have their batteries in a narrow steel container that might fit in a wider keel fairly well. That is the width of the steel container is about one cell wide and long enough to get the operating voltage used. In effect if you where able to buy said batteries off the shelf they would be ready to drop in. I don't know if this packaging is standardized or not. So I'm not sure about the availability of individual cells for DIY. This company: http://www.trojanbattery.com/Products/Industrial_Line.html has a reputation in the solar industry for good products. Unfortunately their web site sucks. In the end it would probably be better to just buy the batteries you need unless you really need a forklift. In the end I'm not real excited by the idea of plugging in a bunch of lead acid batteries into a sail boat. Especially one expected to travel the open oceans. That is why the discussion about the iron battery is so interesting, they seem like a far safer solution than wet lead acid batteries. Sent from my iPad On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:00:35AM +0100, ANDREW AIREY wrote: >> >> I don't see why you couldn't accomodate a forktruck battery into a >> keel if thought desireable.My recollection of forktruck batteries from >> some years ago is that,unlike automotive batteries,they are >> constructed of individual replaceable cells,typical dimensions >> 8"square by 2ft deep. > > Yep. That's one of the big advantages of these. Most of them are > soldered together, but some (like the SunOne battery I cited) are made > with mechanical connections, which makes them much easier to replace as > well as move around in the first place. > >> Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of >> construction,used it to build the boat, then used the battery and the >> drive motor in the boat and weighed the rest in. > > *Nice* idea. I don't know if the motor would actually be useful in the > marine application, but kudos for at least thinking about it - I missed > that idea completely. > > > 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 > > > | 26025|26025|2011-06-23 16:23:19|wild_explorer|Practical application of "batteries" discussion|1. NiFe batteries are evolution/parallel development of NiCd battery ??? according wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium_battery 2. For DIY... Most power battery tools & radios use NiCd battery. They appear to be "dead" (have Zero voltage. However you can extract 10-50% of usable cells from it. Take cell string, extend it and look for the cells which have no leakage (you can see it). Remove good cells, discard cells with leakage. To check if this cell will charge, connect it to available battery in series with some load for short period of time (several seconds). See if voltage on the cell goes up. Connect cells to get needed voltage. If you can get your hands on bunch of cheap similar NiCd batteries (power tools, radios) you can make several good ones. You can fix your power tool's battery as well. They use similar NiCd cells. 3. Modelers use NiCd batteries as fast-charge batteries by applying up to double-triple voltage to charge it. 4. Russian NiFe batteries looks very good (designed for power applications - starter and power_applications/electric_trains). 5. I was told that you may find NiFe batteries at scrap yards in USA. Nobody really knows what it is, but by the weight people know that it has no lead inside, so not so many people interested in it. And with Zero voltage in it, it looks unusable.| 26026|25950|2011-06-23 17:07:49|mauro gonzaga|Re: electric motors?|Came on Brent! You are going to the extreme (of stupidity): I would not recommend less than 4 mm underwater because localized corrosion (after a contact with anchor or a rock and consequent damage to painting) runs very fast: 3 mm in one year could happen. A hole, whilst I am on board might be detected and temporarily fixed, problem could happen leaving the boat unattended for a couple of weeks. For a 36 footer, traditional I would guess 500 lbs framing (transverse), plating (4 mm) 5/32, with a 3/16 lower strake, would be a reasonable  and strong construction. Frameless I would guess 1/4 plating throughout. This means a slightly thicker shell plating (deck the same in both), same strength, better corrosion resistance and a slightly heavier, but cheaper construction. I didn't want to underestimate Origami, the contrary. I worked 8 years to build a 33 footer round bilge complicate shape (wine glass, long keel) 4 mm thk with frames 50 x 5, 370 mm apart. With an Origami I would have sailed seven years before. Alas in 1976 I had no idea of internet and Origami did not exist. Frankly I am still doubtful about aesthetic appearance of the one long.dart only (the mid part appears vertical, straight and bulky, to me). I saw the YAGO 31 shape and considered more appealing although a bit more time consuming (but 3 mm plating is too thin for a steel boat). Bigger Yago was promised but the designer disappeared. Stay with us, Brent. Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   I once saw plans for a 30 footer which had 3,000 lbs of framing, and 1/8th inch plate, which weighs the same as 3/8th plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? I once saw a powerboat under construction, made out of 1/8th plate ,with enough framing to make it the same weight as 1/4 inch plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? Which would be more forgiving in terms of corrosion? Most boats the size of my 36 use 1/8th inch plate, and lots of framing. I've seen several which had rusted out, which would have had many more years in them , had they been 3/16th plate. When you are pounding on a lee shore , on rocks , and a sharp rock hits between frames , the frame increases the odds of holing. Only thicker plate will save you there. Frames ,in that situation, are a liability. Longitudinals contribute far more to strength than transverse frames. Shape contributes far more to strength than transverse frames. Most structural boat calculations either don't take shape into consideration , or undervalue it, which is why they produce extremely labour intensive, expensive and overweight boats. Origami boats take full advantage of shape, and longitudinals. Fibreglass boats also take full advantage of shape, thus eliminating the need for frames. Which is tougher , fibreglass or steel? . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > 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 > ich woudk be tougher? > > > ________________________________ > 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] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26027|26025|2011-06-23 18:09:44|Darren Bos|Re: Practical application of "batteries" discussion|Wild, much of what you propose for NiCd batteries is only going to cause headaches and frustration. When a pack of NiCd die there is usually one or a few cells that have been shorted by crystal dendrites. However, the cells that haven't died yet still have crystal growth, just not long enough yet to cause short. Assembling packs with old cells just leads to constantly chasing the next bad cell. Also you will be forced into replacing bad cells with good cells and packs with mismatched cells also creates short lived cells and headaches. I was one of those modelers who used to abuse NiCd in model aircraft with 10C discharge rates and 5C charge rates (by the way, only a few brands could tolerate such abuse). I think we will see the same changes in full scale vehicles that has already happened in model radio control vehicles. Pb, NiCd and NiMH technologies have largely been abandoned for Lithium battery technology which offers a much better power density and are much easier to care for. The only holdback for larger vehicles is the cost of Lithium batteries, which has already come down and looks like it will continue to do so. Lithium polymer batteries could be a nice match for a sailboat. They are sealed, maintenance free, flat and easy to stack in all sorts of places. Building large batteries out of many small batteries may be a way to fit enough capacity into the keel. The Tesla Roadster electric vehicle uses this approach to fit the batteries in. However, at this point it would still be an expensive way to go. Darren At 01:23 PM 23/06/2011, you wrote: > > >1. NiFe batteries are evolution/parallel >development of NiCd battery ??? according wikipedia > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium_battery > >2. For DIY... Most power battery tools & radios >use NiCd battery. They appear to be "dead" (have >Zero voltage. However you can extract 10-50% of >usable cells from it. Take cell string, extend >it and look for the cells which have no leakage >(you can see it). Remove good cells, discard >cells with leakage. To check if this cell will >charge, connect it to available battery in >series with some load for short period of time >(several seconds). See if voltage on the cell >goes up. Connect cells to get needed voltage. > >If you can get your hands on bunch of cheap >similar NiCd batteries (power tools, radios) you can make several good ones. > >You can fix your power tool's battery as well. They use similar NiCd cells. > >3. Modelers use NiCd batteries as fast-charge >batteries by applying up to double-triple voltage to charge it. > >4. Russian NiFe batteries looks very good >(designed for power applications - starter and >power_applications/electric_trains). > >5. I was told that you may find NiFe batteries >at scrap yards in USA. Nobody really knows what >it is, but by the weight people know that it has >no lead inside, so not so many people interested >in it. And with Zero voltage in it, it looks unusable. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26028|26025|2011-06-23 18:53:46|wild_explorer|Re: Practical application of "batteries" discussion|Just to clarify... I was not talking about using NiCd batteries in any serious applications. It does not even look good compare to NiFe (even with some advantages NiCd over NiFe). I just did not realized it had similar technology and was developed around the same time ;)) As for DIY, "rebuilding NiCd pack" could be short term solution if you need your tools' battery pack bring to functional condition. My coworkers (whose hobby is modeling) get their battery packs for "free" - from dumpster. They make usable packs from it. No need to worry if another cell goes bad - just replace that cell. That is a real re-cycling.... Small NiCd batteries do not look suitable option for a sailboat (they are sealed - impossible to replace electrolyte and use toxic materials). NiFe at this case looks much better option (price/maintenance/simplicity). May be I am wrong again ;) As I heard, Tesla Roadster had to put limit and monitor each battery cell, because of possible batteries fire_hazard/explosion during car's acceleration. May be in the future Lithium Polymer type will become affordable. Who knows... And thank you for some information I did not know about NiCd. This forum has a LOT of knowledgeable people in different fields. That why I like it! ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Wild, much of what you propose for NiCd batteries > is only going to cause headaches and > frustration. When a pack of NiCd die there is > usually one or a few cells that have been shorted > by crystal dendrites. | 26029|26025|2011-06-23 19:02:40|Donal|Re: Practical application of "batteries" discussion|Here is a practical application of a GIANT battery for two towns in British Columbia. http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/10016 My wife and I have been investing a bit in lithium mining stocks (piggy bank levels just to keep us in touch to see if or when they take off with the demand and costs of lithium moving upward). The major use of lithium is batteries, of course. What really intrigued me was a recent article in Ocean Nav about their ability to discharge almost completely without damage and to charge back up without going into the trickle-charge mode to get to 100%. The difference this would make in charging systems is enormous, but it also means you don't need as much capacity since you can go beyond lead acid's 80 to 50 percent practical and typical use range. Both generator and windgen outputs can be used fully, then turned off. Anyone interested in quieter anchorages?| 26030|25891|2011-06-23 21:17:24|Kim|Re: BS 31 off the west Australian coast|Your boat looks really terrific, Shane! Congratulations! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > A picture of my first sail in my BS 31 off  the west Australian coast > Great day > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26031|26025|2011-06-23 21:43:03|Kenneth Long|Re: Practical application of "batteries" discussion|FYI - Uploaded a PDF from "batteryfriend@..." who is a Ni-Fe battery manufacturer in China, found on Alibaba.com.  Document has physical dimensions and capacity sizes of different batteries they manufacture. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26032|25891|2011-06-24 09:59:41|James Pronk|Re: BS 31 off the west Australian coast|Great work Shane! How is the family liking it? James --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > A picture of my first sail in my BS 31 off  the west Australian coast > Great day > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26033|25950|2011-06-24 14:19:03|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|In Egypt they rioted because the governemtn was corrupt, and abusive. In Libya they rioted becauese the government was attacking them with fighter jets. In Vancouver they rioted becaues the government had put up huge screens and spent a million dollars to entertain them. A good example of herd insanity. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Brent > I guess you saw what had happened after the Vancouver Stanley Cup loss! > James > > --- On Wed, 6/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 11:00 PM > > >   > > > > People go insane in herds, led by the herd mentality, and only return to sanity, individually. > Cowards fear not being a member of "Mass Groupthink." > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26034|26013|2011-06-24 14:26:30|brentswain38|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from the wind, that could be greatly extended , by motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. I BC you can often get a month without a breath of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at 25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than 100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, ANDREW AIREY wrote: > > > > I don't see why you couldn't accomodate a forktruck battery into a >keel if thought desireable.My recollection of forktruck batteries from >some years ago is that,unlike automotive batteries,they are >constructed of individual replaceable cells,typical dimensions >8"square by 2ft deep. > > It requires REALLY good planning. The widest part of the keel is needed for main part of the ballast. If I use steel plates as ballast, there is NO room inside the keel left for the batteries. It is possible to use bulb in the keel to compensate vertical center of gravity because of battery installation though... > > Tween keels do not have enough space for batteries and batteries will be 20-25 deg (or more when boat heels) off vertical. > > Single keel, I suspect, is about 8-10" in WIDEST part?. Making more than 1 layer of batteries in the keel is not practical - need to maintain batteries. So, only reasonable place to put batteries in this case would be the top of the keel. In case of acid-flooded batteries (forklift, etc) you need to make sealed compartment vented to atmosphere to prevent acid spills, vapors and Hydrogen (fire/explosion hazard) entering to living space. Plus you have to plan where to make water tank (or put batteries on the top of it in sealed compartment). > > > >Tf you bought your forktruck at the start of construction,used it to >build the boat, then used the battery and the drive motor in the boat >and weighed the rest in.Incidentally,has anyone tried to build a power >battery from scratch.I know it's not worth it for a starter >battery,but it might be for a big job. > > cheers > > andy airey > > > > It is good idea IF you can find electrical forklift for sale cheap. I just took a look what inventory industrial auction have in our area - only forklifts powered by CNG :(( So, it will very depend what you can find nearby.... You might find industrial electric carts (source of batteries, motor, transmission) in some areas. > | 26035|25950|2011-06-24 14:35:12|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|So you are saying that 36 footers which have survived 16 days of pounding in 8 to 12 foot surf and have been pulled off thru the same surf dropped on hard sand every wav for 1/4 mile, with no serious damage, or one which suvived pouding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef in big surf, are not strong enough? 1/4 plate ona 36 is gross overkill. It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Came on Brent! You are going to the extreme (of stupidity): I would not recommend less than 4 mm underwater because localized corrosion (after a contact with anchor or a rock and consequent damage to painting) runs very fast: 3 mm in one year could happen. A hole, whilst I am on board might be detected and temporarily fixed, problem could happen leaving the boat unattended for a couple of weeks. > For a 36 footer, traditional I would guess 500 lbs framing (transverse), plating (4 mm) 5/32, with a 3/16 lower strake, would be a reasonable  and strong construction. Frameless I would guess 1/4 plating throughout. This means a slightly thicker shell plating (deck the same in both), same strength, better corrosion resistance and a slightly heavier, but cheaper construction. I didn't want to underestimate Origami, the contrary. I worked 8 years to build a 33 footer round bilge complicate shape (wine glass, long keel) 4 mm thk with frames 50 x 5, 370 mm apart. With an Origami I would have sailed seven years before. Alas in 1976 I had no idea of internet and Origami did not exist. > > Frankly I am still doubtful about aesthetic appearance of the one long.dart only (the mid part appears vertical, straight and bulky, to me). I saw the YAGO 31 shape and considered more appealing although a bit more time consuming (but 3 mm plating is too thin for a steel boat). Bigger Yago was promised but the designer disappeared. > > Stay with us, Brent. > Mauro > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:56 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > >   > I once saw plans for a 30 footer which had 3,000 lbs of framing, and 1/8th inch plate, which weighs the same as 3/8th plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? > I once saw a powerboat under construction, made out of 1/8th plate ,with enough framing to make it the same weight as 1/4 inch plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? Which would be more forgiving in terms of corrosion? > Most boats the size of my 36 use 1/8th inch plate, and lots of framing. I've seen several which had rusted out, which would have had many more years in them , had they been 3/16th plate. > When you are pounding on a lee shore , on rocks , and a sharp rock hits between frames , the frame increases the odds of holing. Only thicker plate will save you there. Frames ,in that situation, are a liability. > Longitudinals contribute far more to strength than transverse frames. Shape contributes far more to strength than transverse frames. Most structural boat calculations either don't take shape into consideration , or undervalue it, which is why they produce extremely labour intensive, expensive and overweight boats. Origami boats take full advantage of shape, and longitudinals. > Fibreglass boats also take full advantage of shape, thus eliminating the need for frames. Which is tougher , fibreglass or steel? . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > 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 > > ich woudk be tougher? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26036|26013|2011-06-24 15:02:13|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Efficiencies are approximately: Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low end for generators due to low RPM) The moral of the story: Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. Do not convert energy multiple times. "The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com ----------------------------------------------------------- From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from the wind, that could be greatly extended , by motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. I BC you can often get a month without a breath of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at 25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than 100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26037|25950|2011-06-24 15:15:05|Matt Malone|Re: electric motors?|Brent wrote: "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. " Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26038|25950|2011-06-24 15:33:22|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|One of the advantages of starting with an origami hull is you only have 14 feet of chine to radius, and the ends are far more attractive than the flat sided ends of a boat with a radiused chine all the way along. It's also much quicker and easier to do. When you look at most round bilged fibreglass boats, there is very little round or flare from the deck to the waterline. Origami hulls usually have an inch of compound curve there, from weld shrinkage on the chines. That is why an origami boat, in the water, is almost indistinguishable from a round bilged boats. Only the fish know for sure. 1/8th plate is very common on framed 36 ft steel boats. I've sen several scrapped, when, had they 3/16th plate, they would have survived, I believe the boat with excessive framing I referred to was a Weston farmer 32 ft Tahiti ketch. I was once asked to plate one in Frisco. It was an abortion of complexity , a mass of framing, longitudinals and useless bits and pieces. The retired owner had spent three years to get to that stage. I told him I could build him a hull and decks, starting from scratch, in a fraction the time it would take to plate what he had. I once read about a couple cruising the tropics, in a boat which had corrosion under the head, in an area which was inaccessible for maintenance. Bare and constantly wet in the tropics, it took three years for it to rust thru 3 /16th plate from the inside. Corroding thru in a couple of weeks means you are doing something really stupid. No boat is completely idiot proof. I have had zero paint on the bottom of my keels for most of the last 27 years, and there is no sign of corrosion there. You could make it happen, by the common foolishness of leaving an AC power cord in the water along side. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > So you are saying that 36 footers which have survived 16 days of pounding in 8 to 12 foot surf and have been pulled off thru the same surf dropped on hard sand every wave for 1/4 mile, with no serious damage, or one which survived pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef in big surf, are not strong enough? 1/4 plate on a 36 is gross overkill. Now that's stupid. > It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with a hard chine, then, piece by piece, cut out and weld in radius sections along the chine. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > Came on Brent! You are going to the extreme (of stupidity): I would not recommend less than 4 mm underwater because localized corrosion (after a contact with anchor or a rock and consequent damage to painting) runs very fast: 3 mm in one year could happen. A hole, whilst I am on board might be detected and temporarily fixed, problem could happen leaving the boat unattended for a couple of weeks. > > For a 36 footer, traditional I would guess 500 lbs framing (transverse), plating (4 mm) 5/32, with a 3/16 lower strake, would be a reasonable  and strong construction. Frameless I would guess 1/4 plating throughout. This means a slightly thicker shell plating (deck the same in both), same strength, better corrosion resistance and a slightly heavier, but cheaper construction. I didn't want to underestimate Origami, the contrary. I worked 8 years to build a 33 footer round bilge complicate shape (wine glass, long keel) 4 mm thk with frames 50 x 5, 370 mm apart. With an Origami I would have sailed seven years before. Alas in 1976 I had no idea of internet and Origami did not exist. > > > > Frankly I am still doubtful about aesthetic appearance of the one long.dart only (the mid part appears vertical, straight and bulky, to me). I saw the YAGO 31 shape and considered more appealing although a bit more time consuming (but 3 mm plating is too thin for a steel boat). Bigger Yago was promised but the designer disappeared. > > > > Stay with us, Brent. > > Mauro > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:56 AM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > > > > >   > > I once saw plans for a 30 footer which had 3,000 lbs of framing, and 1/8th inch plate, which weighs the same as 3/8th plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? > > I once saw a powerboat under construction, made out of 1/8th plate ,with enough framing to make it the same weight as 1/4 inch plate with no framing. Which would be tougher? Which would be more forgiving in terms of corrosion? > > Most boats the size of my 36 use 1/8th inch plate, and lots of framing. I've seen several which had rusted out, which would have had many more years in them , had they been 3/16th plate. > > When you are pounding on a lee shore , on rocks , and a sharp rock hits between frames , the frame increases the odds of holing. Only thicker plate will save you there. Frames ,in that situation, are a liability. > > Longitudinals contribute far more to strength than transverse frames. Shape contributes far more to strength than transverse frames. Most structural boat calculations either don't take shape into consideration , or undervalue it, which is why they produce extremely labour intensive, expensive and overweight boats. Origami boats take full advantage of shape, and longitudinals. > > Fibreglass boats also take full advantage of shape, thus eliminating the need for frames. Which is tougher , fibreglass or steel? . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > ich woudk be tougher? > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26039|25950|2011-06-24 15:37:18|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent wrote: > "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece > by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. " > > Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26040|25950|2011-06-24 16:11:29|mauro gonzaga|Origami plating thickness|We may get out from electric motor now. Brent wrote: When writing about corrosion I have my experience. It is not exactly what brent talkes about. I have experienced a damage to underwater paint due to impact with anchor: at the next bottom painting (less than one year after) I decided to sand blast the bottom. The sand from outsede entered into the boat from the hole that corrosion caused in way of the damaged painting. So I meant that a small hole of corrosion may start bleeding and if you are on the boat you can fix it, if you are absent, say a couple of weeks, from the small hole might enter enough water to sink the boat. My ideal thickness for underwater plate is 3/16 in a 36 footer (actually my 33 footer with transverse framing has 5 mm near the keel and 4 mm the rest), I agree with you guys. Brent and Matt gave me the idea of cutting the chine out and placing a radiussed plate instead, it is not a great job. Of course part interested to the operation shall be braced not to move when cut and welded. This is not difficult as well. Should prepare sections of transverse frames to a fixed radius, weld them inside the hull in way of the chine and then cut the chine out, weld a strip of plate shaped round to match the round frames inside. Weld to the hull, grind and you have an almost round bilge boat. Mauro   Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent wrote: > "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece > by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. " > > Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26041|25950|2011-06-24 16:24:07|Paul Thompson|Re: Origami plating thickness|Why bother? On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:11 AM, mauro gonzaga wrote: > We may get out from electric motor now. > Brent wrote: > > 14 feet of chine to radius, and the ends are far more attractive than > the flat sided ends of  a boat with a radiused chine all the way along.  It's also much quicker and easier to do. > When you look at most round bilged fibreglass boats, there is very > little round or flare from the deck to the waterline. Origami hulls > usually  have an inch of compound curve there, from weld shrinkage on > the chines.  That is why an origami boat, in the water, is almost > indistinguishable  from a round bilged boats. Only the fish know for > sure. > 1/8th plate is very common on framed 36 ft steel boats. I've sen > several scrapped, when, had they 3/16th plate, they would have survived, > I believe the boat with excessive framing I referred to was a Weston farmer 32 ft Tahiti ketch. > I was once asked to plate one in Frisco. It was an abortion of > complexity , a mass of framing, longitudinals and useless bits and > pieces. The retired  owner had spent three years to get to that stage. I >  told him I could build him a hull and decks, starting from scratch, in a >  fraction the time it would take to  plate what he had. > I once read about a couple cruising the tropics, in a boat which had > corrosion under the head, in an area which was inaccessible for > maintenance. Bare and constantly wet in the tropics, it took three years >  for it to rust thru 3 /16th plate from the inside. Corroding thru in a > couple of weeks means you are doing something really stupid. No boat is > completely idiot proof. I have had zero paint on the bottom of my keels > for most of the last 27 years, and there is no sign of corrosion there. > You could  make it happen, by the common foolishness of leaving  an AC power cord in the water along side.> > > When writing about corrosion I have my experience. It is not exactly what brent talkes about. I have experienced a damage to underwater paint due to impact with anchor: at the next bottom painting (less than one year after) I decided to sand blast the bottom. The sand from outsede entered into the boat from the hole that corrosion caused in way of the damaged painting. So I meant that a small hole of corrosion may start bleeding and if you are on the boat you can fix it, if you are absent, say a couple of weeks, from the small hole might enter enough water to sink the boat. My ideal thickness for underwater plate is 3/16 in a 36 footer (actually my 33 footer with transverse framing has 5 mm near the keel and 4 mm the rest), I agree with you guys. > > > Brent and Matt gave me the idea of cutting the chine out and placing a radiussed plate instead, it is not a great job. Of course part interested to the operation shall be braced not to move when cut and welded. This is not difficult as well. Should prepare sections of transverse frames to a fixed radius, weld them inside the hull in way of the chine and then cut the chine out, weld a strip of plate shaped round to match the round frames inside. Weld to the hull, grind and you have an almost round bilge boat. > Mauro > > > > > > > Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> >> >> Brent wrote: >> "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece >>  by piece then  cut out and weld in  radiuse sections along the chine. " >> >> Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. >> >> 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 > > > > -- Regards, Paul Thompson| 26042|25950|2011-06-24 16:24:48|Paul Thompson|Re: electric motors?|Why bother? On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> >> >> Brent wrote: >> "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece >>  by piece then  cut out and weld in  radiuse sections along the chine. " >> >> Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Regards, Paul Thompson | 26043|26013|2011-06-24 16:41:07|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Matt, By my calculations this is an argument for a hybrid system based on efficiency. If gas to shaft efficiency is 20-30% this compares to an brushless electric motor that is 80-90% efficient (my number, not Matt's) and a generator that is 60-90%, which gives a hybrid system an efficiency around 50-80%. So when your motoring needs are modest you can use your batteries which have been charged from a combination of solar/wind/shore power. If you need extended range you run a generator and your fuel efficiency is still close or better to that of what you could have achieved with a infernal combustion engine alone. So in terms of energy efficiency there are good arguments for a hybrid system. However, even with "free" power from wind and solar I'm sure it would take many years and a lot of motoring to recoup the costs of a hybrid system compared to used or rebuilt diesel engine. My take is that an electric hybrid system is a better system for many sailboats (instant full power, no diesel fumes when motoring on battery, flexibility in placement of the generator, extra electric storage when you are at anchor......), but you have to be willing to pay a premium. Darren At 12:02 PM 24/06/2011, you wrote: > > > > >Efficiencies are approximately: > >Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > >Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > >Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% > >Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > >Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > >Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar >cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter > >Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% > >Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), >typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built > >Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low >end for generators due to low RPM) > >The moral of the story: > >Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. > >Do not convert energy multiple times. > >"The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua > >MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >---------------------------------------------------------- >From: brentswain38@... >Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > >I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive >on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he >could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was >flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from >the wind, that could be greatly extended , by >motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. > >I BC you can often get a month without a breath >of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may >help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at >less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at >25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than >100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26044|25950|2011-06-24 16:41:19|wild_explorer|Re: Origami plating thickness|What is the reason to have radius bilge for a sailboat? For me, having the chine underwater is the main advantage of Origami... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Brent and Matt gave me the idea of cutting the chine out and placing a radiussed plate instead, it is not a great job. | 26045|25950|2011-06-24 16:53:26|Matt Malone|Re: Why Bother re-chining an Orgami|Why bother ? There are a lot of people who will build an orgami, and sail it, and that is great. There are limitations on the hull shape of an orgami -- one of the least deniable criticisms of orgami, and it goes beyond rounding out chines. Say someone wants to build a sailboat and be sure to get it in the water in some reasonable amount of time. They can start with orgami to get the overall dimensions. If welding turns out to be more of a chore than they had hoped then just finish it off and sail. If they get the hull done and deck and dog house in easily, and have their motor sitting there waiting, then can then ponder additional modifications. A pilot house is not so bad. Re-chining the entire boat might be a bit much for most. Alternately, one might want to fit a long blue-nose style keel (cut-away forefoot) by building it and its hull-faring as one piece and then welding it to the bottom of the orgami. After it is on, one might cut out the bilge to place ballast in the alternate keel. If after tackling a pilot house, the desire to weld a lot more has disappeared (or the excess in the budget has been consumed) then one can stick with what orgami produced, and proceed with fitting it out as it is. The hull is done when you say it is done. An orgami start might well suit a builder who imagines they want a rounded-chine boat as the orgami "frame" might be a lot faster to make than a set of framing, and it produces a boat-looking thing with a lot less work. Getting to a stage where it looks close to a water-tight boat, fast, might also help with the political issues of "You want to what ?" that come up in response to "I want to build a boat." Why bother ? The point is flexibility of personal choice. And this idea allows one to address one of the criticisms of orgami, limits on hull shape, if one thinks that is important. Sounds win-win to me. So I say, why not, if you want to. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: pault@... Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:24:39 +1200 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? Why bother? On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> >> >> Brent wrote: >> "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece >> by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. " >> >> Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. >> >> Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26046|26046|2011-06-24 17:34:28|ANDREW AIREY|Electric Motors|The electric forktrucks I used were ex warehouse models so definitely not the 'all terrain' type.However,provided the surface outside was reasonably smooth( although not necessarily level) we had few problems.I think the motors were of the brushed dc type - probably not as efficient as a modern pancake motor but I don't remember any particular problems.I think the cells were located with melted pitch and you could bypass a cell if it went down,although one wouldn't do this too often.It is possible, sometimes, to flush out and refill a dead battery.A friend of mine used to do this on a fairly regular basis with scrap truck batteries.It didn't work every time but did work often enough to be worthwhile - I can find out how he did it if anyone is interested. cheers Andy Airey| 26047|26013|2011-06-24 17:36:52|Matt Malone|Managing power efficiencies (was Weight distribution Re:electric mot|Darren, Looking at the energy paths, and recognizing that most of the energy of a hybrid system one is going to use a lot is going to come from a fuel engine, then, when running electric, this is the energy path: Fuel -> motor shaft -> alternator -> battery -(later)-> energy converter/modulator -> motor so multiplying all of the efficiencies: 25%*40%*80%*85%*85% = 5.78% Use a really good generator instead of an alternator and: 25%*90%*80%*85%*85% = 13% Now if one is using a alternate source of power, like solar or wind, and, using the electric drive sparingly then perhaps, within the limit of the "excess" free energy one gets, the path is: Excess Alternate Power -> battery -(later)-> energy converter/modulator -> motor With a path efficiency of: 80%*85%*85% = 57.8% However, that hard-fought "excess" renewable power, still has to be stored in the battery, displacing "reserve power" that might be needed later, so probably a larger battery is needed. The point that I am trying to get at is, "The only winning move is not to play". One strategy is to store energy in some other form. For instance, once the water tank is filled above some minimum level, switch the water maker over to opportunity mode (maybe running intermittently from a super capacitor with the 100% charging efficiency) and have a larger water tank. Then "excess renewable power" becomes "excess fresh water". Having a larger water tank is way easier than larger batteries, or the power converter/modulator to run an electric motor properly. Efficiency: 100%, with the cost of a larger water tank, a super capacitor capable of running the water maker pump for 1-2 minutes at a time, and a small "opportunity" circuit that kicks in the charging of the super capacitor when there is excess power, and gating the water maker pump when there is sufficient charge in the capacitor. Another for-instance. Every refrigerator makes a reasonably good icebox. Have a small ice maker, like the water maker, running in opportunity mode off of "excess renewable power". So when the batteries are full, and there is power to spare, the boat starts making ice and dumping it in the fridge. OK, the fridge has to be a bit larger, you need an icemaker, and an "opportunity" circuit, but, we all know that the refrigerator is going to be a good fraction of the power draw of a boat. When the refrigerator has ice in the reservoir, it will run a lot less often, or not at all. Your batteries will in effect be larger and last longer. OK, now the most important part of efficiency. Here is the final quiz on efficiency: a) Honey, would you like ice in that drink ? b) Or Honey, have a good long shower, we have lots of water. c) Or Honey, sure we can watch a movie on the flatscreen tonight, we have plenty of power ... (because the fridge has barely run all day). d) Or Honey, watch me flick on the $2-3,000 hybrid drive instead of the engine to get the boat to the anchorage. Now the question: Which one is going to have the *least* efficiency in creating enjoyment for the rest of the evening ? I am not trying to argue with you Darren. I am trying to get everyone to think about all the conversions and efficiencies and think what they really mean in the end, what is easy and cheap to make larger, and what is not, what will become a fallible device needing repair, and what are the most important parts of the time spent on the boat. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: bosdg@... Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:40:50 -0700 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Matt, By my calculations this is an argument for a hybrid system based on efficiency. If gas to shaft efficiency is 20-30% this compares to an brushless electric motor that is 80-90% efficient (my number, not Matt's) and a generator that is 60-90%, which gives a hybrid system an efficiency around 50-80%. So when your motoring needs are modest you can use your batteries which have been charged from a combination of solar/wind/shore power. If you need extended range you run a generator and your fuel efficiency is still close or better to that of what you could have achieved with a infernal combustion engine alone. So in terms of energy efficiency there are good arguments for a hybrid system. However, even with "free" power from wind and solar I'm sure it would take many years and a lot of motoring to recoup the costs of a hybrid system compared to used or rebuilt diesel engine. My take is that an electric hybrid system is a better system for many sailboats (instant full power, no diesel fumes when motoring on battery, flexibility in placement of the generator, extra electric storage when you are at anchor......), but you have to be willing to pay a premium. Darren At 12:02 PM 24/06/2011, you wrote: > > > > >Efficiencies are approximately: > >Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > >Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > >Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% > >Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > >Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > >Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar >cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter > >Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% > >Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), >typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built > >Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low >end for generators due to low RPM) > >The moral of the story: > >Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. > >Do not convert energy multiple times. > >"The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua > >MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >---------------------------------------------------------- >From: brentswain38@... >Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > >I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive >on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he >could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was >flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from >the wind, that could be greatly extended , by >motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. > >I BC you can often get a month without a breath >of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may >help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at >less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at >25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than >100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. > > > >[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]| 26048|26013|2011-06-25 03:50:31|Denis Buggy|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|MATT MALONES POST IS EXCELLENT it says it all very well there was one comment earlier which concerned the only large scale use of electricity on water during the second world war by submarine s it was stated they ran on electric power generally -this is not the case if weather allowed u boats would run on the surface at night on diesel power and by day using diesel summered breathing buy schnorkel . their design made them very unstable on the surface in bad weather . the main purpose for the electric motors was to allow them to escape the search sonar and depth charges as quietly as possible --compressed air was used to trim the boat . electric drive has become popular on large ships and military craft for reasons other than propulsion -- you can now fit your engines in the bow if your design has the empty space and you no longer need abide by the long prop shaft normally used -- this allows you to design a different hull and allows you to place the cargo where you wish -- as low as possible in the hull . if you have jet drives -being able to fit a row of them close together at the perfect height is not so easy when you come to line up engines gearboxes and shafting in a car ferry . the ability to combine a continuously variable shaft to a continuously variable prop is very useful also and where some ships would have a number of electric bow thrusters you are half way there anyway gearboxes are not required nor is reverse gear and the complexity of wet hydraulic clutches are done away with also . for manoeuvring some large ships have a propeller which turns 360 degrees in any direction again only possible with electric . i think the use of something to propel your boat which makes it complex and un reliable is not a good idea . denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 8:02 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Efficiencies are approximately: Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low end for generators due to low RPM) The moral of the story: Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. Do not convert energy multiple times. "The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com ---------------------------------------------------------- From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from the wind, that could be greatly extended , by motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. I BC you can often get a month without a breath of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at 25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than 100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26049|26049|2011-06-25 11:22:24|badpirate36|Look'in to tour some origami boats.|I'm fitting out my BS36(aluminium). I am ready(almost) to start the foaming process. Although I have gotten many ideas from the many photo's on this site and others for the interior. It's time to step on-board a finished origami or better yet one just a little further on than mine, and try to tie all this together /.o) So, if anybody has a little time over the summer and would like to show off their boat, I'll be on time and won't stay long. Thanx Tom Casault badpirate@...| 26050|26050|2011-06-25 11:57:56|badpirate36|Welding on a foamed boat?|I would like to install a hard dodger on my BS36(aluminium)after the boat is compleated. Is it possible to weld on the exterior after the boat has been foamed. Would the foam ignite? Tom Casault| 26051|26013|2011-06-25 12:03:04|David Frantz|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|While your numbers might be accurate, I think you mis the point. There are advantages to electric propulsion that can't be dismissed especially in the context of sailing vessels. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Efficiencies are approximately: > > > > Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > > Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > > Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% > > Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > > Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > > Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter > > Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% > > Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), > typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built > > Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low end for generators due to low RPM) > > > > > > The moral of the story: > > > > Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. > > Do not convert energy multiple times. > > "The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua > > > > > MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from the wind, that could be greatly extended , by motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. > > I BC you can often get a month without a breath of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at 25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than 100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. > > > > > [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 > > > | 26052|26013|2011-06-25 12:47:47|Darren Bos|Re: Managing power efficiencies (was Weight distribution Re:electric|Matt, I like the philosophy of treating the entire boat as the system. By my calcs the hybrid system can offer better fuel economy (constant rpm motor with matched load generator offers better fuel to shaft efficiency and no need for battery losses in hybrid mode etc.) and that seems to be backed up by some installs in other boats (across a wide scale from small pleasure craft to an amphibious aircraft carrier). However, we agree that you have to decide where you want to spend your money and I admit it is difficult to recoup the extra cost of a hybrid system in fuel savings. I have a wife that can't stand the smell of diesel or diesel exhaust. When we've been on boats where a strong smell of either it seems to contribute to seasickness, so the economics slant in a different direction for me. If you operate off battery only these things are eliminated and even when you operate using the generator it is easier to control exhuast and "engine room" smells with a generator install compared to a traditional diesel motor (think of the boats you seen, how many have shiny bilges beneath the engine compared to the appearance of a generator room/cabinet). Mostly I think it is a matter of time before the price point of components comes down and increasing fuel prices tips things more strongly in favor of the hybrid solution. If you follow "the only winning move is not to play" logic to its conclusion you end up at the Pardey strategy, skip the engine, put an outboard on the dinghy for harbor maneuvers and use the engine bay for storage space (maybe you even have to skip the outboard). I start my build in six years, so I'm watching to see where the balance tips. Darren At 02:36 PM 24/06/2011, you wrote: >Darren, > >Looking at the energy paths, and recognizing that most of the energy >of a hybrid system one is going to use a lot is going to come from a >fuel engine, then, when running electric, this is the energy path: > >Fuel -> motor shaft -> alternator -> battery -(later)-> energy >converter/modulator -> motor > >so multiplying all of the efficiencies: 25%*40%*80%*85%*85% = 5.78% > >Use a really good generator instead of an alternator >and: 25%*90%*80%*85%*85% = 13% > >Now if one is using a alternate source of power, like solar or wind, >and, using the electric drive sparingly then perhaps, within the >limit of the "excess" free energy one gets, the path is: > >Excess Alternate Power -> battery -(later)-> energy >converter/modulator -> motor > >With a path efficiency of: 80%*85%*85% = 57.8% > >However, that hard-fought "excess" renewable power, still has to be >stored in the battery, displacing "reserve power" that might be >needed later, so probably a larger battery is needed. > >The point that I am trying to get at is, "The only winning move is >not to play". One strategy is to store energy in some other form. > >For instance, once the water tank is filled above some minimum >level, switch the water maker over to opportunity mode (maybe >running intermittently from a super capacitor with the 100% charging >efficiency) and have a larger water tank. Then "excess renewable >power" becomes "excess fresh water". Having a larger water tank is >way easier than larger batteries, or the power converter/modulator >to run an electric motor properly. Efficiency: 100%, with the cost >of a larger water tank, a super capacitor capable of running the >water maker pump for 1-2 minutes at a time, and a small >"opportunity" circuit that kicks in the charging of the super >capacitor when there is excess power, and gating the water maker >pump when there is sufficient charge in the capacitor. > >Another for-instance. Every refrigerator makes a reasonably good >icebox. Have a small ice maker, like the water maker, running in >opportunity mode off of "excess renewable power". So when the >batteries are full, and there is power to spare, the boat starts >making ice and dumping it in the fridge. OK, the fridge has to be a >bit larger, you need an icemaker, and an "opportunity" circuit, but, >we all know that the refrigerator is going to be a good fraction of >the power draw of a boat. When the refrigerator has ice in the >reservoir, it will run a lot less often, or not at all. Your >batteries will in effect be larger and last longer. > >OK, now the most important part of efficiency. Here is the final >quiz on efficiency: > >a) Honey, would you like ice in that drink ? >b) Or Honey, have a good long shower, we have lots of water. >c) Or Honey, sure we can watch a movie on the flatscreen tonight, we >have plenty of power ... (because the fridge has barely run all day). >d) Or Honey, watch me flick on the $2-3,000 hybrid drive instead of >the engine to get the boat to the anchorage. > >Now the question: Which one is going to have the *least* efficiency >in creating enjoyment for the rest of the evening ? > >I am not trying to argue with you Darren. I am trying to get >everyone to think about all the conversions and efficiencies and >think what they really mean in the end, what is easy and cheap to >make larger, and what is not, what will become a fallible device >needing repair, and what are the most important parts of the time >spent on the boat. > >Matt > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: bosdg@... >Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:40:50 -0700 >Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > >By my calculations this is an argument for a > >hybrid system based on efficiency. If gas to > >shaft efficiency is 20-30% this compares to an > >brushless electric motor that is 80-90% efficient > >(my number, not Matt's) and a generator that is > >60-90%, which gives a hybrid system an efficiency > >around 50-80%. So when your motoring needs are > >modest you can use your batteries which have been > >charged from a combination of solar/wind/shore > >power. If you need extended range you run a > >generator and your fuel efficiency is still close > >or better to that of what you could have achieved > >with a infernal combustion engine alone. So in > >terms of energy efficiency there are good > >arguments for a hybrid system. However, even > >with "free" power from wind and solar I'm sure it > >would take many years and a lot of motoring to > >recoup the costs of a hybrid system compared to > >used or rebuilt diesel engine. My take is that > >an electric hybrid system is a better system for > >many sailboats (instant full power, no diesel > >fumes when motoring on battery, flexibility in > >placement of the generator, extra electric > >storage when you are at anchor......), but you > >have to be willing to pay a premium. > > > >Darren > > > >At 12:02 PM 24/06/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Efficiencies are approximately: > > > > > >Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > > > > > >Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > > > > > >Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature > alternators): 30-60% > > > > > >Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > > > > > >Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > > > > > >Light to electricity: Cheap amorphous solar > > >cells: 12% of 1000 W per square meter > > > > > >Light to electricity: Better Polycrystalline solar cells: 16-20% > > > > > >Air Movement to Wind Turbine Shaft Work: < 59% (the Betz Limit), > > >typically 40% for a professional turbine blade, less for home-built > > > > > >Wind turbine shaft work to electricity: 60% (low > > >end for generators due to low RPM) > > > > > >The moral of the story: > > > > > >Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. > > > > > >Do not convert energy multiple times. > > > > > >"The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua > > > > > >MattTo: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >From: brentswain38@... > > >Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:26:29 +0000 > > >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > > > > > >I once woke up to find a guy with electric drive > > >on a 30 ft sloop anchored behind me. He said he > > >could get 20 miles out of a charge, if it was > > >flat calm, with no swell, but with any help from > > >the wind, that could be greatly extended , by > > >motor sailing, and use of the wind generator. > > > > > >I BC you can often get a month without a breath > > >of wind, under solid overcast. A generator may > > >help, but then you are back to burning fuel, at > > >less than 100% efficiency to charge a battery at > > >25% efficiency to run a motor, at far less than > > >100 % efficiency , losing energy at every step of the way. > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >------------------------------------ > >To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26053|26013|2011-06-25 13:58:40|wild_explorer|Managing power efficiencies (was Weight distribution Re:electric mot|This is really interesting and educational discussion. It just need to concentrate on the application of the "power/backup_propulsion system" for a sailboat. System should meet owner's intended use, even if it does not look good for another person. There are many criterias for choosing the system (lowest cost, easy to fix, minimal maintenance,, high-tech, etc). So, we are back to a personal choice... I have not decided by myself what criteria to use. Probably several of them: lowest cost, minimal DIY maintenance, easy to fix. Looks like only sails fit that description ;)) May be better to ask "What system you can live without (compromise voyage) if it fails"? Is there "no_power/man_power" replacement option? P.S. Outboard motor may be not a bad idea (even with many disadvantages compare to inboard propulsion system). Especially if it could be used as a generator. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > If you follow "the only winning move is not to play" logic to its > conclusion you end up at the Pardey strategy, skip the engine, put an > outboard on the dinghy for harbor maneuvers and use the engine bay > for storage space (maybe you even have to skip the outboard). I start > my build in six years, so I'm watching to see where the balance tips. > > Darren | 26054|26013|2011-06-25 16:30:50|Paul Wilson|Re: Managing power efficiencies (was Weight distribution Re:electri|>>>>If you follow "the only winning move is not to play" logic to its conclusion you end up at the Pardey strategy, skip the engine, put an outboard on the dinghy for harbor maneuvers and use the engine bay for storage space (maybe you even have to skip the outboard). This approach severely limits the places you can go. The Pardey's had a hell of a time getting through the Panama Canal on Serrafyn. I prefer being independent rather than bumming tows or rides from other cruisers. In Panama, you now have to sign a form saying you can maintain 5 knots throughout the length of the canal or they won't let you through. If you try to lie about it, the pilot will make you turn back. I think with a small outboard they would make you go alongside another boat which would not be to my liking. I saw one boat break free from the wall when its crappy cleats pulled out of the deck and get smacked. Anyway, I sailed the reefs of Fiji for many years and would never have been able to go the places I did without a strong engine. To be able to motor through a reef pass with strong current and adverse or no wind gives you a huge safety margin, in my opinion. I have seen boats sail to places without an engine but they often miss out on all the best parts and are restricted to large harbors with easy entrances. There is a lot of difference between sailing "to" a country and sailing "in" a country. Cheers, Paul| 26055|26050|2011-06-25 18:26:03|brentswain38|Re: Welding on a foamed boat?|I've done a lot of welding on steel boats after foaming. On aluminium heat travels further and faster , which may help disssipate it , or may increase the risk of fire. On steel, I scrape out three inches of foam beyond the weld, all around, then push a wet rag up under the weld zone and, prop it up there with a stick. Having someone inside with a hose is also a good idea. Then as I weld, I cool the weld down quickly, after every inch of welding, before the heat has a chance to spread. The metalurgist and Atlas Alloys told me this quick quenching is preferable with stainless , but I don't know how it would affect aliminium. Then, how much strength you need at that point is another relevant question. After welding on steel, its good idea to scrape the paint off well beyond where it is obviously affected, as it is affected far beyond the burnt part. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > I would like to install a hard dodger on my BS36(aluminium)after the boat is compleated. Is it possible to weld on the exterior after the boat has been foamed. Would the foam ignite? > > Tom Casault > | 26056|26013|2011-06-26 16:49:07|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Efficiencies are approximately: > > Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > > Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > > Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% Matt - in most cases, I agree with you, but this is a false picture of the situation. All of the above are "external costs" to anyone who plugs in to charge - and even more are external costs for those who run hybrid systems (which is what you would normally do if you were going to drive the motors for a large percentage of the time rather than just as a "harbor motor" and for occasional periods elsewhere.) In the former case, all you "pay" is the costs below - which, in the best case, multiply out to ~%85.5. In the latter case, you use the generator (diesel, usually, running at the "highest efficiency" RPM) to a load-matching PWM controller - another quite efficient gadget - which drives a high-voltage AC motor (90%+ range.) Minimal losses there, as well. > Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > > Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > > The moral of the story: > > Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. I disagree. "Do not use electricity inefficiently" would be true, though. > Do not convert energy multiple times. Now _that_ is as good as gold. 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| 26057|26049|2011-06-26 19:10:37|rooster|Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats.|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > I'm fitting out my BS36(aluminium). I am ready(almost) to start the foaming process. Although I have gotten many ideas from the many photo's on this site and others for the interior. It's time to step on-board a finished origami or better yet one just a little further on than mine, and try to tie all this together /.o) So, if anybody has a little time over the summer and would like to show off their boat, I'll be on time and won't stay long. > Thanx > Tom Casault > badpirate@... > I have 40 foot BS aluminum. We launched 3 months ago, would not spray foam and no welding after. I use mascoat delta T insulating coating...works great and you can weld your dodger on later.| 26058|26013|2011-06-27 02:22:02|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben, If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But then the initial cost per unit use is very high. Why not use something cheaper. Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC and a matching motor, that together achieve a 90% conversion efficiency from DC stored power to mechanical motion. I would be interested in one that is of a horsepower suitable for a 30-50 ft boat, and would like to see what sort of price is involved. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:48:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Efficiencies are approximately: > > Gasoline Fuel to Shaft work: 20-30% > > Shaft work to Electricity (good generators): 60-90% > > Shaft work to Electricity (automotive claw-type armature alternators): 30-60% Matt - in most cases, I agree with you, but this is a false picture of the situation. All of the above are "external costs" to anyone who plugs in to charge - and even more are external costs for those who run hybrid systems (which is what you would normally do if you were going to drive the motors for a large percentage of the time rather than just as a "harbor motor" and for occasional periods elsewhere.) In the former case, all you "pay" is the costs below - which, in the best case, multiply out to ~%85.5. In the latter case, you use the generator (diesel, usually, running at the "highest efficiency" RPM) to a load-matching PWM controller - another quite efficient gadget - which drives a high-voltage AC motor (90%+ range.) Minimal losses there, as well. > Electricity to lead-acid battery storage: 70-90% (wide range) > > Electricity to Shaft Work: 60%-95% > > The moral of the story: > > Do not use electricity when you can avoid it. I disagree. "Do not use electricity inefficiently" would be true, though. > Do not convert energy multiple times. Now _that_ is as good as gold. 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] | 26059|26013|2011-06-27 02:56:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Ben, > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > Why not use something cheaper. Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? That, I can do. 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| 26060|26049|2011-06-27 04:20:24|Kim|Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint.|Hi Rooster ... Very interesting that you decided to use an insulating paint rather than spray foam! Is this the one that you used? ... http://www.mascoat.com/mascoat-marine-insulating-paint.html How many coats did you apply? Is it OK under the waterline inside? I can't see any mention of R-values on their website; but would you say it's as good as (say) 1/2" thick foam? If it works, this sounds like it might be a pretty good alternative to spray-on foam, especially for those who live in climates that don't experience extreme cold. Any further feedback that you can give of your experience with this product would be most appreciated! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" wrote: > > I have 40 foot BS aluminum. We launched 3 months ago, would not spray foam and no welding after. I use mascoat delta T insulating coating...works great and you can weld your dodger on later. ______________________________________________________________ | 26061|26013|2011-06-27 05:09:56|j|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... from what I have read there have been no posts from people with personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are almost silent, and don't stink ... and cheers, JHL --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > Ben, > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > That, I can do. > > > 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 > | 26062|26013|2011-06-27 06:09:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:40:50PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > > However, even > with "free" power from wind and solar I'm sure it > would take many years and a lot of motoring to > recoup the costs of a hybrid system compared to > used or rebuilt diesel engine. One highly cogent argument for a system of that sort is that the price of diesel is shooting up and is not about to stop. That recouping period is getting shorter day by day. There's also the point - which I find extremely important - that you are getting your fuel for free once you've paid the up-front costs for the collectors. With diesel, you have to pay that cost on an on-going basis, forever. There is *no* way to achieve that sort of disconnection from the industrial grid with diesel (unless you can somehow manage to store, say, a hundred tons of diesel on a typical cruising yacht.) 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| 26063|26013|2011-06-27 07:56:23|James Pronk|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Have a look at this for powering your boat.   http://www.instructables.com/id/Convert-your-Honda-Accord-to-run-on-trash/   I was think of this to power my gas generator for my shop. James   --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, June 27, 2011, 6:09 AM One highly cogent argument for a system of that sort is that the price of diesel is shooting up and is not about to stop. That recouping period is getting shorter day by day. There's also the point - which I find extremely important - that you are getting your fuel for free once you've paid the up-front costs for the collectors. With diesel, you have to pay that cost on an on-going basis, forever. There is *no* way to achieve that sort of disconnection from the industrial grid with diesel (unless you can somehow manage to store, say, a hundred tons of diesel on a typical cruising yacht.) 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] | 26064|26013|2011-06-27 09:21:09|Ben Okopnik|Re: Managing power efficiencies (was Weight distribution Re:electric|On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:36:51PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > OK, now the most important part of efficiency. Here is the final quiz on efficiency: > > a) Honey, would you like ice in that drink ? > b) Or Honey, have a good long shower, we have lots of water. > c) Or Honey, sure we can watch a movie on the flatscreen tonight, we have plenty of power ... (because the fridge has barely run all day). > d) Or Honey, watch me flick on the $2-3,000 hybrid drive instead of the engine to get the boat to the anchorage. > > Now the question: Which one is going to have the *least* efficiency in creating enjoyment for the rest of the evening ? The "honey, let's have dinner ashore, where there will be ice in the drinks, luxurious showers, and an IMAX movie theater - we can afford it because we didn't have to buy any diesel this past year!" option beats all of the above hands down. :))) A straight-up powered run up the US east coast in "Ulysses", from northern Florida to New York city, would be 3 tanks of diesel for me, at 100 gallons per tankful (I get almost precisely 3mpg, which represents an average of motoring through everything from flat water to heavy chop in the open ocean.) As of this morning, http://marinefuel.com/ has US marine diesel prices at 2.51 - 6.70 per gallon; at the average price, $4.61 per gallon, that would be $1381.50. That's _one_ passage up the coast. In the course of a year, I average about two and a half to three times that distance (sure, most of my actual mileage is under sail, but for the purposes of this discussion, the fuel usage is what matters.) Call that four grand a year in fuel; add another grand in engine maintenance. Add, oh, several dozen hours of fiddling with the engine and all its appurtenances. Add in the annoyance - and the legal exposure - every time you fill up, lest you spill a single drop. Add in living with the smell of diesel and exhaust, and the noise when you have to run it, as well as having to hope that the damn thing will actually run when you need it. After the initial outlay for an electric system, 99% of the above - including the yearly $5k outlay, is gone. Even if you spent $20k on your electric setup, it seems to me that a four-year payback cycle and free fuel from then on would be a win in not only financial terms but also in the huge jump in the quality of life during that period. 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| 26065|26013|2011-06-27 09:54:51|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|JHL, This is the way I like to sail -- not using the motor -- but no one else who has ever sailed with me had the patience for 1 knot in a light breeze. Something about looking at the destination for an hour drives them mental. Consequently, I have sailed a lot alone. I have sailed three seasons with a no-motor-except-when-necessary policy and used 10-12 liters of fuel each season. I also use an electric motor as a bow thruster, and like it a lot, for little shots while approaching a slit or a wharf. I will never have a boat without a bow thruster now, no matter how silly the rig has to look to hold it. If I went electric for main propulsion, I would want a sealed motor, possibly with cooling water. I want to know, if I get a bucket of saltwater on it, it is still going to run. The "hybrid" idea that works in cars, to high-average gas mileage, is not nearly so useful on a boat IMHO. There are no stop-and-go traffic jams on the water. In my work I investigate fires in hybrid vehicles. There are so many fires, I am certain in fleet vehicles that vehicle replacement cost is a significant cost relative to fleet fuel savings. With buses costing $450,000, if one burns, that is an equivalent cost of 400,000 liters of fuel. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jhlean@... Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:09:55 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... from what I have read there have been no posts from people with personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are almost silent, and don't stink ... and cheers, JHL --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > Ben, > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > That, I can do. > > > 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] | 26066|26013|2011-06-27 12:01:31|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben, Unfortunately, the free power for electric is not free. All the battery technologies have fixed number of cycles and you need to amortize that cost into your fuel cost. In electric cars the battery cost per km travelled are often much higher than the cost of electricity bought off the grid. Also, you need to amortize the cost of the extra solar panels and wind generators that you would not need if you had a diesel motor. I still like the idea of an electric hybrid system and think it offers many things diesel can't. But I think it would be very hard to save much money as a result of using an electric system. That said, I think it offers enough benefits to justify the cost. I'm just starting to play with the idea of a twin keeler with a motor in each keel. You could use larger more efficient props, gain a nice accessible storage space, twin prop maneuvering in close quarters, two smaller motors and matching controllers are easier to find than one big and you gain redundancy...... All of which isn't possible in the same boat using a traditional diesel. Darren At 03:09 AM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > >On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:40:50PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > > > > However, even > > with "free" power from wind and solar I'm sure it > > would take many years and a lot of motoring to > > recoup the costs of a hybrid system compared to > > used or rebuilt diesel engine. > >One highly cogent argument for a system of that sort is that the price >of diesel is shooting up and is not about to stop. That recouping period >is getting shorter day by day. There's also the point - which I find >extremely important - that you are getting your fuel for free once >you've paid the up-front costs for the collectors. With diesel, you have >to pay that cost on an on-going basis, forever. There is *no* way to >achieve that sort of disconnection from the industrial grid with diesel >(unless you can somehow manage to store, say, a hundred tons of diesel >on a typical cruising yacht.) > >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]| 26067|26013|2011-06-27 12:05:39|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Matt, Is there a particular failure mode in hybrids that is causing the fires compared to diesel or gas equivalents? Collisions are much less likely at sea, but it seems many of the other failure modes would be shared. A lithium battery bank fire at sea would be really uncomfortable.... Darren At 06:54 AM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > > >JHL, > >This is the way I like to sail -- not using the >motor -- but no one else who has ever sailed >with me had the patience for 1 knot in a light >breeze. Something about looking at the >destination for an hour drives them mental. >Consequently, I have sailed a lot alone. I have >sailed three seasons with a >no-motor-except-when-necessary policy and used >10-12 liters of fuel each season. I also use an >electric motor as a bow thruster, and like it a >lot, for little shots while approaching a slit >or a wharf. I will never have a boat without a >bow thruster now, no matter how silly the rig >has to look to hold it. If I went electric for >main propulsion, I would want a sealed motor, >possibly with cooling water. I want to know, if >I get a bucket of saltwater on it, it is still going to run. > >The "hybrid" idea that works in cars, to >high-average gas mileage, is not nearly so >useful on a boat IMHO. There are no stop-and-go >traffic jams on the water. In my work I >investigate fires in hybrid vehicles. There are >so many fires, I am certain in fleet vehicles >that vehicle replacement cost is a significant >cost relative to fleet fuel savings. With buses >costing $450,000, if one burns, that is an >equivalent cost of 400,000 liters of fuel. > >Matt > >---------------------------------------------------------- >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: jhlean@... >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:09:55 +0000 >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > >Have been half following the discussions around >electric motors ... from what I have read there >have been no posts from people with personal >experience of electric motors. I built my boat >(frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 >tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000. First 3 >years I sailed without any motor (not enough >cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel >... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. > >Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > >I know different folks have different >requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not >a motor boat, so intended and did sail most >places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, >I found myself doing stuff that I would never >have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... > >My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second >hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours >each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so >altogether still weight less than the diesel I >used to lug around. The motor went from the >240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall >lighter. I never once plugged into shore power >and never once went below 50% charge. Drove a >18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I >had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with >the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top >speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric >5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm >drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 >miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > >I found the electric motor far more useful for a >sailing boat than the diesel. First of all it is >always "on" and so if you suddenly needed >something other than sail power, then you just >hit the throttle and it goes. Even used it once >to slow my boat down while surfing down huge >swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my >boat to go about while tacking up long narrow >harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... > >I guess if you really do motor long distance, >then electric is not practicable ... but they >are infinitely more reliable when you really >want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee >shore) ... take up so little space you wonder >what to do with what you've gained ... and are >almost silent, and don't stink ... and > >cheers, JHL > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 > http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26068|26049|2011-06-27 12:37:04|IAN CAMPBELL|Re: Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint.|Just add hollow glass beads used for thickening epoxy resin.....add to acrylic paint...stops condensation.. Laws of thermodynamics remain  1/2 inch insulation  = half inch foam insulation  = 1/2 inch thickened insulated paint...... works for me. BUT  2 layers of glass bead paint on steel  around hatches prevents condensation in 100 per cent humidity in BC winter ----- Original Message ----- From: Kim Date: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:20 am Subject: [origamiboats] Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Hi Rooster ... > > Very interesting that you decided to use an insulating paint > rather than spray foam! Is this the one that you used? ... > > http://www.mascoat.com/mascoat-marine-insulating-paint.html > > How many coats did you apply? Is it OK under the waterline > inside? I can't see any mention of R-values on their website; > but would you say it's as good as (say) 1/2" thick foam? > > If it works, this sounds like it might be a pretty good > alternative to spray-on foam, especially for those who live in > climates that don't experience extreme cold. Any further > feedback that you can give of your experience with this product > would be most appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" > wrote: > > > > I have 40 foot BS aluminum. We launched 3 months ago, would > not spray foam and no welding after. I use mascoat delta T > insulating coating...works great and you can weld your dodger on > later.______________________________________________________________ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26069|5040|2011-06-27 14:12:15|rooster|Insulating paint|I applied 4 coats on a hot summer day and it was hot inside the boat...after the first coat the temp. dropped dramatically inside the boat...I have had no condensation issues...I added one layer of reflextics from home depot and it takes care of solar heat gain. To spray foam you would need to prime first...and would need to blast to get all the crevices...mascoat was designed to apply to aluminum...the prep work included cleaning the surface with vinagar and thats it and I have welded over it. Welding discolors it slightly. I did not spray the bilge. I will try and post a pic. A steel boat would need a primer befor aplication. I will still need awnings in the tropics.| 26070|26013|2011-06-27 14:40:26|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:01:21AM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > Ben, > > Unfortunately, the free power for electric is not > free. All the battery technologies have fixed > number of cycles and you need to amortize that > cost into your fuel cost. Darren, I know that a lot of people use that line of reasoning - but I don't believe that it's a valid one unless you also amortize your diesel and your fuel tanks and your hoses, etc., which is something that all the pro-diesel folks are completely silent about. Please note that no one ever tries to tell you to amortize your food or medicine. Amortizing is valid when it's applied to investments, or things in which your interest is primarily financial - but that's not the case here. You need propulsion, from whatever source it comes, to make a boat move. Should we talk about amortizing sails and masts? How about the rigging, or better yet, the entire boat? If you're talking about use cost, that's a different sort of animal - and definitely worth considering. So, sure - let's look at the battery cycles. I believe I've mentioned the General Battery's HUP battery: 4000 cycles at 50% DOD, and 2100 cycles at 80% DOD. The company guarantees the batteries fully for the first 7 years, and pro-rates them for the next three. Even if you cycled them daily (which would be nearly impossible unless you were running a commercial boat), the use cost would still be *much* lower than anything in an ICE. Lithium batteries are very expensive and complicated to maintain, but have a ridiculously high number of cycles - it's essentially a once-per- lifetime purchase. They're more expensive than any other battery setup, but they're still very cheap over the long term. Of course, trying to run on automotive batteries is a quick way to go broke. > But I think it would be very hard to save > much money as a result of using an electric > system. That said, I think it offers enough > benefits to justify the cost. Again, depending on your usage, going electric could be _drastically_ cheaper than ICE - but in other scenarios, it's either too expensive or simply not usable at all. It's really not possible to argue the point just on general principles, because there's no single answer that can cover all those cases. 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| 26071|5040|2011-06-27 14:47:42|brentswain38|Re: Insulating paint|It did reduce condensation, but didn't eliminate it. I tried the ceramic insulating beads in epoxy, with the same result. I used it inside the 4 inch stainless pipes for my cowl vents. No condensation most of the time , but when I cook, it rains condensation from inside them. 1/16 th inch of foam completely eliminates this condensation, for a comparison. Foam also drastically reduces noise inside the hull. For lattitudes lower than 40 degrees , insulating paint is probably all you need, but for higher lattitudes, I still don't believe there is any substitute for an inch and a half of foam. Yes, you definitely must get a lot of epoxy inside the hull before foaming. My steel was shotblasted andf primed with cold galvanizing primer, so there is no need to sandblast, and only wheelabrading and priming steel before construction can guarantee clean, mill scale free steel everywhere. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" wrote: > > I applied 4 coats on a hot summer day and it was hot inside the boat...after the first coat the temp. dropped dramatically inside the boat...I have had no condensation issues...I added one layer of reflextics from home depot and it takes care of solar heat gain. > To spray foam you would need to prime first...and would need to blast to get all the crevices...mascoat was designed to apply to aluminum...the prep work included cleaning the surface with vinagar and thats it and I have welded over it. Welding discolors it slightly. I did not spray the bilge. I will try and post a pic. A steel boat would need a primer befor aplication. I will still need awnings in the tropics. > | 26072|25950|2011-06-27 14:50:42|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|Right on. Why bother? It is a lot of extra work, for nothing, but to impress the fish.I just wanted to point out that it can be done, with far less work than other forms of radiused chine construction, with better results. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Thompson wrote: > > Why bother? > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > > Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Brent wrote: > >> "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece > >>  by piece then  cut out and weld in  radiuse sections along the chine. " > >> > >> Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Paul Thompson > | 26073|26049|2011-06-27 15:07:24|brentswain38|Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats.|Starting from Victoria, Ocean Boy is in Esquimalt harbour. Babara Allen, Panache, and another 36 are in Maple Bay and Genoa Bay, Dove 4 is in Ladysmith Maritime Society's docks, ditto Seramin, and Puna in Newcastle marina in Nananimo, and Viski, behind the Muddy waters pub, and another 36 at the Nanaimo Yacht club dock. My Island may be at the Gibsons govt dock in Gibsons. Dove 2 may still be in Deep Bay marina south of the govt dock in Deep Bay. Moon Raven and another 36 may still be at the govt dock in Comox and Lungta, another 36, anchored west of the condos in Comox. That is if they haven't left for the summer. Another 36 is under contruction ( overdue for launching) on 2nd avenue in Courtenay, and another on 26th and Willemar. Another 36, is in Sheerwater BC. A 26 is under construction in Queen Charlotte City. Several boats, 36 and 26, are under construction in Alaska. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > I'm fitting out my BS36(aluminium). I am ready(almost) to start the foaming process. Although I have gotten many ideas from the many photo's on this site and others for the interior. It's time to step on-board a finished origami or better yet one just a little further on than mine, and try to tie all this together /.o) So, if anybody has a little time over the summer and would like to show off their boat, I'll be on time and won't stay long. > Thanx > Tom Casault > badpirate@... > | 26074|26013|2011-06-27 15:09:34|Leif Thomsen|SV: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Electric visavi ICE is actual a no brainer. We have passed peak oil. In the future there will be fights about remaining oil. The military, police, bus companies and there like will get the remaing oil. Pleasure boats will probably be way down that list! And the price will skyrocket! Since a sailboat will last for 50 years or more (at least a god steel boat) I would go for electric while there is any money left to invest! The sun is there for free now and in the future. Solar panels last 25-30 years +, AC motors (brushless) will last 100 years. Battery will rapidly improve, since it needs to improve because of PO. So start electric now and upgrade batteries when better technologi is there. Leif T| 26075|26013|2011-06-27 15:35:34|Ben Okopnik|Re: SV: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:09:26PM +0200, Leif Thomsen wrote: > > Electric visavi ICE is actual a no brainer. We have passed peak oil. In the > future there will be fights about remaining oil. The military, police, bus > companies and there like will get the remaing oil. Pleasure boats will > probably be way down that list! And the price will skyrocket! Since a > sailboat will last for 50 years or more (at least a god steel boat) I would > go for electric while there is any money left to invest! The sun is there > for free now and in the future. Solar panels last 25-30 years +, AC motors > (brushless) will last 100 years. Battery will rapidly improve, since it > needs to improve because of PO. So start electric now and upgrade batteries > when better technologi is there. Agreed. Many - I would even say most - of the benefits of going electric are non-financial, and so cannot be shown on an amortization schedule. Once you ignore all of those, electric doesn't look too good - but if you don't ignore them, then burning fuel makes no sense whatsoever. 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| 26076|5040|2011-06-27 16:02:59|rooster|Insulating paint|I am happy with the insulating coating. Foam would be better for sound proofing as an alloy boat is not quiet without it. I use rubber mats below waterline and may add some sheet foam in the ends and the deck. The insulating coating does quiet things some. Security of a metal boat is worth the extra noise and with hi-tec coatings I can access the entire hull for inspection or repair and mods. I will follow up after a year of use and let you know what I think then. I posted a pic| 26077|26013|2011-06-27 16:19:12|Paul Thompson|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Hi JHL, Are you in New Zealand by any chance? If so, I'd be interested in where you sourced your motor. Thanks, Paul Thompson On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:09 PM, j wrote: > Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... from what I have read there have been no posts from people with personal experience of electric motors.  I built my boat (frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000.  First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. > Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most places.  Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... > My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around.  The motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall lighter.  I never once plugged into shore power and never once went below 50% charge.  Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I had with the Yanmar.  Better acceleration with the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric 5.5knots).  Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 miles.  Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the diesel.  First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it goes.  Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge swells off southern NZ.  Also used it to get my boat to go about while tacking up long narrow harbours ... just  a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... > > I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > cheers, JHL > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >> > >> > >> > Ben, >> > >> > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the >> > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal.  But >> > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. >> >> Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a >> low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when >> that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at >> WOT for hours straight, then it's not. >> >> >  Why not use something cheaper. >> >> Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting >> video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of >> the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that >> electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the >> Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the >> Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of >> any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it >> up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well >> against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be >> charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell >> you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is >> waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. >> >> (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) >> >> > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load >> > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC >> >> Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and >> in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal >> conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an >> efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? >> That, I can do. >> >> >> 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 > > > > -- Regards, Paul Thompson | 26078|26013|2011-06-27 16:30:50|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|There are a number of different failures, but it comes down to one thing -- the energy can be readily released in an extremely short time if any one of a number of things goes wrong. Think of it like powering your boat with nitroglycerine. I have investigated a fire at a lithium battery plant. They were proud of the high energy density of their products, and compared their energy density to dynamite. I suggested that perhaps, if their product has the energy density of dynamite, their plant should be laid out like a dynamite plant, so that an incident in one area is unlikely to cause the entire plant to go up. Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs a really competent source of ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. Again, closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the batteries, leading to a very fast discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through. With any high current system there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going bad and increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, the power dissipated in the connection greatly accelerates the degradation, and one gets a runaway condition. Connections can go red-hot by stealing only a few volts at high current. This is likely to lead to a more mundane fire, but, with high capacity charged batteries on-board, and fire can get interesting fast. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: bosdg@... Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:14 -0700 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Matt, Is there a particular failure mode in hybrids that is causing the fires compared to diesel or gas equivalents? Collisions are much less likely at sea, but it seems many of the other failure modes would be shared. A lithium battery bank fire at sea would be really uncomfortable.... Darren At 06:54 AM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > > >JHL, > >This is the way I like to sail -- not using the >motor -- but no one else who has ever sailed >with me had the patience for 1 knot in a light >breeze. Something about looking at the >destination for an hour drives them mental. >Consequently, I have sailed a lot alone. I have >sailed three seasons with a >no-motor-except-when-necessary policy and used >10-12 liters of fuel each season. I also use an >electric motor as a bow thruster, and like it a >lot, for little shots while approaching a slit >or a wharf. I will never have a boat without a >bow thruster now, no matter how silly the rig >has to look to hold it. If I went electric for >main propulsion, I would want a sealed motor, >possibly with cooling water. I want to know, if >I get a bucket of saltwater on it, it is still going to run. > >The "hybrid" idea that works in cars, to >high-average gas mileage, is not nearly so >useful on a boat IMHO. There are no stop-and-go >traffic jams on the water. In my work I >investigate fires in hybrid vehicles. There are >so many fires, I am certain in fleet vehicles >that vehicle replacement cost is a significant >cost relative to fleet fuel savings. With buses >costing $450,000, if one burns, that is an >equivalent cost of 400,000 liters of fuel. > >Matt > >---------------------------------------------------------- >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: jhlean@... >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:09:55 +0000 >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > >Have been half following the discussions around >electric motors ... from what I have read there >have been no posts from people with personal >experience of electric motors. I built my boat >(frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 >tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000. First 3 >years I sailed without any motor (not enough >cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel >... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. > >Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > >I know different folks have different >requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not >a motor boat, so intended and did sail most >places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, >I found myself doing stuff that I would never >have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... > >My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second >hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours >each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so >altogether still weight less than the diesel I >used to lug around. The motor went from the >240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall >lighter. I never once plugged into shore power >and never once went below 50% charge. Drove a >18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I >had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with >the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top >speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric >5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm >drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 >miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > >I found the electric motor far more useful for a >sailing boat than the diesel. First of all it is >always "on" and so if you suddenly needed >something other than sail power, then you just >hit the throttle and it goes. Even used it once >to slow my boat down while surfing down huge >swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my >boat to go about while tacking up long narrow >harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... > >I guess if you really do motor long distance, >then electric is not practicable ... but they >are infinitely more reliable when you really >want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee >shore) ... take up so little space you wonder >what to do with what you've gained ... and are >almost silent, and don't stink ... and > >cheers, JHL > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 > http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26079|26013|2011-06-27 16:47:21|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben, Yes, I think the cost of a diesel engine should be amortized into the cost of an ICE system. Amortizing the entire system over my period of use is what I do, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Just as Matt pointed out that you should look at the efficiency of the entire system to figure out energy efficiency, I think you have to look at all costs over the period of use if you want to figure out "economic efficiency". If I have to choose between two sails, one 30% more expensive, but gives better performance and lasts 50% longer, then the decision to buy the initially more expensive sail, but cheaper amortized over the life of the sail, is straightforward. I agree that arguing electric or diesel on general principles is difficult due to the number of variables and different user demands. But I do think both sides ignore much of the costs/deficiencies. Diesel advocates worry about the reliability of an electric system, ignoring the many failures of diesel engines. Electric advocates tout the "free energy" they use, ignoring the cost of the expensive solar panels etc..... My observation is that, if you like to work on mechanical systems, don't mind the smell of diesel and like the ability to cruise for long periods near hullspeed, then diesel makes sense. If you are willing to give up travelling at hull speed for protracted periods and would prefer to compare electronics than get your hands greasy, then you probably are going to like the electric solution. If cost is the only concern than a Yuloh wins hands down. Darren At 11:40 AM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:01:21AM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > > Ben, > > > > Unfortunately, the free power for electric is not > > free. All the battery technologies have fixed > > number of cycles and you need to amortize that > > cost into your fuel cost. > >Darren, I know that a lot of people use that line of reasoning - but I >don't believe that it's a valid one unless you also amortize your diesel >and your fuel tanks and your hoses, etc., which is something that all >the pro-diesel folks are completely silent about. > >Please note that no one ever tries to tell you to amortize your food or >medicine. Amortizing is valid when it's applied to investments, or >things in which your interest is primarily financial - but that's not >the case here. You need propulsion, from whatever source it comes, to >make a boat move. Should we talk about amortizing sails and masts? How >about the rigging, or better yet, the entire boat? > >If you're talking about use cost, that's a different sort of animal - >and definitely worth considering. > >So, sure - let's look at the battery cycles. I believe I've mentioned >the General Battery's HUP battery: 4000 cycles at 50% DOD, and 2100 >cycles at 80% DOD. The company guarantees the batteries fully for the >first 7 years, and pro-rates them for the next three. Even if you cycled >them daily (which would be nearly impossible unless you were running a >commercial boat), the use cost would still be *much* lower than anything >in an ICE. > >Lithium batteries are very expensive and complicated to maintain, but >have a ridiculously high number of cycles - it's essentially a once-per- >lifetime purchase. They're more expensive than any other battery setup, >but they're still very cheap over the long term. > >Of course, trying to run on automotive batteries is a quick way to go >broke. > > > But I think it would be very hard to save > > much money as a result of using an electric > > system. That said, I think it offers enough > > benefits to justify the cost. > >Again, depending on your usage, going electric could be _drastically_ >cheaper than ICE - but in other scenarios, it's either too expensive or >simply not usable at all. It's really not possible to argue the point >just on general principles, because there's no single answer that can >cover all those cases. > >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]| 26080|26013|2011-06-27 17:04:54|Paul Wilson|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Many years ago, lithium batteries were used in emergency transmitters in aircraft and caused many fires. After many years, the technology has improved and they are being allowed again. Nicad Batteries on aircraft can also have thermal runaway and blow up. They are often located in an area that is quickly accessed and in racks that allow them to be quickly removed with no tools. Large Nicad batteries require special training, special test equipment, and are high maintenance with short maintenance cycles. They are now being replaced in many aircraft with low maintenance and much cheaper lead acid batteries. I find it funny that in aircraft, they are going back to lead acid batteries when the rest of the world is making great claims of new battery technology. Call me a Luddite, but I prefer to wait until the bugs are worked out and the costs come down. I will stick with my deep cycle, golf cart, lead acid batteries. Cheers, Paul On 6/28/2011 8:30 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > There are a number of different failures, but it comes down to one thing -- the energy can be readily released in an extremely short time if any one of a number of things goes wrong. Think of it like powering your boat with nitroglycerine. I have investigated a fire at a lithium battery plant. They were proud of the high energy density of their products, and compared their energy density to dynamite. I suggested that perhaps, if their product has the energy density of dynamite, their plant should be laid out like a dynamite plant, so that an incident in one area is unlikely to cause the entire plant to go up. > > Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs a really competent source of ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. Again, closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the batteries, leading to a very fast discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through. With any high current system there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going bad and increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, the power dissipated in the connection greatly accelerates the degradation, and one gets a runaway condition. Connections can go red-hot by stealing only a few volts at high current. This is likely to lead to a more mundane fire, but, with high capacity charged batteries on-board, and fire can get interesting fast. > > Matt > | 26081|26013|2011-06-27 17:14:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs a really competent source of ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than 30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset hut in just a few minutes. > Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. Again, closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the batteries, leading to a very fast discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through. With any high current system there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going bad and increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. 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| 26082|26013|2011-06-27 17:17:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:44:33PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > Ben, > > Yes, I think the cost of a diesel engine should > be amortized into the cost of an ICE > system. Amortizing the entire system over my > period of use is what I do, it is the only thing > that makes sense to me. Just as Matt pointed out > that you should look at the efficiency of the > entire system to figure out energy efficiency, I > think you have to look at all costs over the > period of use if you want to figure out "economic > efficiency". If I have to choose between two > sails, one 30% more expensive, but gives better > performance and lasts 50% longer, then the > decision to buy the initially more expensive > sail, but cheaper amortized over the life of the sail, is > straightforward. > > I agree that arguing electric or diesel on > general principles is difficult due to the number > of variables and different user demands. But I > do think both sides ignore much of the > costs/deficiencies. Diesel advocates worry about > the reliability of an electric system, ignoring > the many failures of diesel engines. Electric > advocates tout the "free energy" they use, > ignoring the cost of the expensive solar panels > etc..... My observation is that, if you like to > work on mechanical systems, don't mind the smell > of diesel and like the ability to cruise for long > periods near hullspeed, then diesel makes > sense. If you are willing to give up travelling > at hull speed for protracted periods and would > prefer to compare electronics than get your hands > greasy, then you probably are going to like the > electric solution. If cost is the only concern than a Yuloh wins hands down. Darn it, Darren! If you're going to be that precise and reasonable, how am I supposed to argue about it? :))) Needless to say, I agree with all of the above. That's exactly my take on the 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| 26083|26013|2011-06-27 17:28:13|j fisher|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Lipo's go up quite quickly. My nephew was working on an electric car project in school. It had a decent sized lipo pack. The first time on the dyno, one of the kids bumped the contacts together backwards while plugging it in. The battery immediately went into meld down and caught fire. It burned its way through the bottom of the car, destroying a several thousand $$ pack in seconds. On hybrid cars using lithium batteries they have to disconnect at the battery when you turn the power off. An accident can cause a pack to run away if shorted, by disconnecting the pack they reduce the change of issues. They also may have to cool them since they become unstable beyond 140F. They have also found that higher voltage is helpful in keeping the weight down since lower amp draw requires thinner wire. Wire weight can be a significant weight and cost. In the RC car world we have now found that the super high discharge packs (50 to 60C) have a very limited life span. They are only good for 20 + cycles before the IR starts to climb and the packs are noticeably slower. The older 25C packs are significantly more stable and can go 100+ cycles before the IR starts climbing. This is for 6ah batteries so I imagine it is far worse with bigger packs. I like the idea of electric power, but after seeing family friends remove the hybrid drive from their cat after less than a year, I am skeptical. > > I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a > few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. > Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery > explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch > fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt > that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than > fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails > back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26084|26013|2011-06-28 01:32:44|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Thanks Matt, I find Lithium battery technology the most interesting for an electric project. But my limited experience with smaller packs has made me wary of the fire risk. They do seem more like gasoline than diesel... Darren At 01:30 PM 27/06/2011, you wrote: >There are a number of different failures, but it comes down to one >thing -- the energy can be readily released in an extremely short >time if any one of a number of things goes wrong. Think of it like >powering your boat with nitroglycerine. I have investigated a fire >at a lithium battery plant. They were proud of the high energy >density of their products, and compared their energy density to >dynamite. I suggested that perhaps, if their product has the energy >density of dynamite, their plant should be laid out like a dynamite >plant, so that an incident in one area is unlikely to cause the >entire plant to go up. > >Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear >happens, corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a >tank, one needs a really competent source of ignition, and >air. Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel >fire -- make sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go >down. Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only >burn on the surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet >deep. Again, closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more >likely to produce jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes >from boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are on the outside >of the boat though. Any battery system can short just outside the >batteries, or inside the batteries, leading to a very fast >discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean >through. With any high current system there is also the potential >of a high ampere connection slowly going bad and increasing its >resistance. Once the > process really gets underway, the power dissipated in the > connection greatly accelerates the degradation, and one gets a > runaway condition. Connections can go red-hot by stealing only a > few volts at high current. This is likely to lead to a more > mundane fire, but, with high capacity charged batteries on-board, > and fire can get interesting fast. > >Matt > > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: bosdg@... >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:05:14 -0700 >Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > >Is there a particular failure mode in hybrids > >that is causing the fires compared to diesel or > >gas equivalents? Collisions are much less likely > >at sea, but it seems many of the other failure > >modes would be shared. A lithium battery bank > >fire at sea would be really uncomfortable.... > > > >Darren > > > >At 06:54 AM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >JHL, > > > > > >This is the way I like to sail -- not using the > > >motor -- but no one else who has ever sailed > > >with me had the patience for 1 knot in a light > > >breeze. Something about looking at the > > >destination for an hour drives them mental. > > >Consequently, I have sailed a lot alone. I have > > >sailed three seasons with a > > >no-motor-except-when-necessary policy and used > > >10-12 liters of fuel each season. I also use an > > >electric motor as a bow thruster, and like it a > > >lot, for little shots while approaching a slit > > >or a wharf. I will never have a boat without a > > >bow thruster now, no matter how silly the rig > > >has to look to hold it. If I went electric for > > >main propulsion, I would want a sealed motor, > > >possibly with cooling water. I want to know, if > > >I get a bucket of saltwater on it, it is still going to run. > > > > > >The "hybrid" idea that works in cars, to > > >high-average gas mileage, is not nearly so > > >useful on a boat IMHO. There are no stop-and-go > > >traffic jams on the water. In my work I > > >investigate fires in hybrid vehicles. There are > > >so many fires, I am certain in fleet vehicles > > >that vehicle replacement cost is a significant > > >cost relative to fleet fuel savings. With buses > > >costing $450,000, if one burns, that is an > > >equivalent cost of 400,000 liters of fuel. > > > > > >Matt > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > >From: jhlean@... > > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:09:55 +0000 > > >Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > > > > > >Have been half following the discussions around > > >electric motors ... from what I have read there > > >have been no posts from people with personal > > >experience of electric motors. I built my boat > > >(frameless steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 > > >tons) in 1999 and launched in 2000. First 3 > > >years I sailed without any motor (not enough > > >cash) ... then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel > > >... then finally, 3 years with 10hp electric motor. > > > > > >Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > > > > > >I know different folks have different > > >requirements, but I built a sailing boat and not > > >a motor boat, so intended and did sail most > > >places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, > > >I found myself doing stuff that I would never > > >have done if I had no motor, and twice it very nearly cost me the boat ... > > > > > >My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second > > >hand telecom batteries (approx 400 amp hours > > >each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so > > >altogether still weight less than the diesel I > > >used to lug around. The motor went from the > > >240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall > > >lighter. I never once plugged into shore power > > >and never once went below 50% charge. Drove a > > >18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was what I > > >had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with > > >the electric over the Yanmar, but lower top > > >speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric > > >5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm > > >drawing only 20 amps so had a range of about 30 > > >miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > > > > > >I found the electric motor far more useful for a > > >sailing boat than the diesel. First of all it is > > >always "on" and so if you suddenly needed > > >something other than sail power, then you just > > >hit the throttle and it goes. Even used it once > > >to slow my boat down while surfing down huge > > >swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my > > >boat to go about while tacking up long narrow > > >harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power saved hours ... > > > > > >I guess if you really do motor long distance, > > >then electric is not practicable ... but they > > >are infinitely more reliable when you really > > >want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee > > >shore) ... take up so little space you wonder > > >what to do with what you've gained ... and are > > >almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > > > > >cheers, JHL > > > > > >--- In > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > >Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > > > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, when > > > > > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > > > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > > > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > > > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > > > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > > > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > > > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > > > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > > > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > > > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > > > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > > > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > > > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > > > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > > > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > > > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > > > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 > > > http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[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 > > > | 26085|26013|2011-06-28 02:12:34|j|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Hi Paul, Yes I'm based in NZ ... formerly based in Lyttelton, now in Wanganui ... sold my boat a few years ago (but removed the electric and installed another diesel for the sale). My old electric motor is now in a friend's H28 sailing out of Nelson. I will be building another boat (probably one of Brent's) as soon as I can devote the 6 months to do it. It will definitely have an electric motor. The motor is a Manta permanent magnet motor, mail order from USA about US$650 from... http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/manta.html I used a (very expensive) controller (computerized), but I would not recommend that now, easier and cheaper by far to get a soft switch arrangement (a good DC electrician should be able to rig one up) to simply switch battery configuration to achieve different voltages and thus 3 different speeds (12v, 24v and 48v). Infinitely variable speeds not that useful. The batteries I got from The Battery Clinic in Auckland and cost about $200 each back in 2004, but he has no consistent brand (mine were Sonnerheim). The simplicity and reliability of the system is great, and doing away with a hole in the hull great also. By the way all that stored electric power was great for doing jobs on the boat too. cheers, John. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Thompson wrote: > > Hi JHL, > > Are you in New Zealand by any chance? If so, I'd be interested in > where you sourced your motor. > > Thanks, Paul Thompson > > -- > Regards, > > Paul Thompson > | 26086|26013|2011-06-28 02:21:52|j|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Matt, Agree that hybrids are a waste of time and money. Worst of both worlds. I can't see much development of electric motors, but there are a few possible break throughs in batteries (ultra capacitors etc.) and the efficiency of solar energy is set to improve dramatically in the next few years. Cars will inevitably move towards electric propulsion, and so the systems they develop will gradually become better and more readily available, and at a greatly reduced price. I don't know about the vulnerability to water. Some electric motors can work fine underwater, (torpedos?), so long you isolate certain components and protect against corrosion ... John. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > JHL, > > This is the way I like to sail -- not using the motor -- but no one else who has ever sailed with me had the patience for 1 knot in a light breeze. Something about looking at the destination for an hour drives them mental. Consequently, I have sailed a lot alone. I have sailed three seasons with a no-motor-except-when-necessary policy and used 10-12 liters of fuel each season. I also use an electric motor as a bow thruster, and like it a lot, for little shots while approaching a slit or a wharf. I will never have a boat without a bow thruster now, no matter how silly the rig has to look to hold it. If I went electric for main propulsion, I would want a sealed motor, possibly with cooling water. I want to know, if I get a bucket of saltwater on it, it is still going to run. > > The "hybrid" idea that works in cars, to high-average gas mileage, is not nearly so useful on a boat IMHO. There are no stop-and-go traffic jams on the water. In my work I investigate fires in hybrid vehicles. There are so many fires, I am certain in fleet vehicles that vehicle replacement cost is a significant cost relative to fleet fuel savings. With buses costing $450,000, if one burns, that is an equivalent cost of 400,000 liters of fuel. > > Matt > > > | 26087|26013|2011-06-28 02:46:17|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben, For some battery technologies I would agree, but not Lithium-based battery technologies. Check out the video link below, that battery is likely only 1000 to 2000mAh, imagine a boat full of them (high temperature 130 to 150F from overcharging or high discharge loads can also start combustion). Combustion temperature is around 1400 to 1600 degrees F (760 to 871 C.) and will ignite adjacent packs. Lithium is the most attractive technology from the view of energy density, cycle depth and perhaps even total number of cycles, but there are drawbacks of using an alkali metal in a battery (remember the high school demonstration of the chunk of sodium metal in water). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21IySOMmFU4&feature=related Darren At 02:14 PM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Problems with hybrids? People are human, > mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion > happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a > tank, one needs a really competent source of > ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight > will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make > sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. > >Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat >in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour >before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss >cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. > >When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop >for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good >while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full >of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was >pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than >30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and >caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion >happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset >hut in just a few minutes. > > > Gasoline is far more flammable, but even > then, it can only burn on the surface, whether > it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. > Again, closing off the air can work, but > gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames > where there is any leakage of fumes from > boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are > on the outside of the boat though. Any battery > system can short just outside the batteries, or > inside the batteries, leading to a very fast > discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 > MCM arced clean through. With any high current > system there is also the potential of a high > ampere connection slowly going bad and > increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, > >I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a >few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. >Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery >explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch >fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt >that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than >fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails >back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. > >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]| 26088|26049|2011-06-28 06:08:42|Kim|Re: Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint.|Hi Rooster, Brent, and Ian ... Many thanks for your replies to my question about insulating paints. Thanks for the photo's too, Rooster. That's a very nice looking boat you've got there! I think I might use one of these insulating paints in the interior of my Swain 26 (on top of a zinc primer and and multiple coats of epoxy). There are a couple of manufacturers of similar products here in Australia. Hopefully, it might be quite OK for the not-too-warm, not-to-cold, sub-tropical climate I'll be doing most of my sailing in. As I see it, the advantages are ease of application, and, most importantly, no pockets of hidden corrosion that might start under spray-on foam. Might be cheaper too. However, if the insulating paint proves to be inadequate from an insulation point of view, then I guess I could also spray foam on top of it all afterwards. Cheers ... Kim. PS: The current discussion about diesel -v- electric motors in boats is extremely interesting. I would like to put an electric motor in my boat; but (for me) it's very hard to divert from the "tried and true" systems that you know and understand! Diesel in Australia costs almost $1.60/liter ($6.06/gallon), and the price seems to keep going up on a daily basis! I believe it costs much more in Europe and some other parts of the World. At the same time, battery and solar power technology seem to be getting cheaper and better all the time. I can barely afford to fill up my car these days, and I hate to think what diesel is going to cost by the time my boat hits the water! On the face of it, there's a lot that's appealing about electric propulsion. ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > Hi Rooster ... > > Very interesting that you decided to use an insulating paint rather than spray foam! Is this the one that you used? ... > > http://www.mascoat.com/mascoat-marine-insulating-paint.html > > How many coats did you apply? Is it OK under the waterline inside? I can't see any mention of R-values on their website; but would you say it's as good as (say) 1/2" thick foam? > > If it works, this sounds like it might be a pretty good alternative to spray-on foam, especially for those who live in climates that don't experience extreme cold. Any further feedback that you can give of your experience with this product would be most appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ | 26089|26013|2011-06-28 08:00:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:46:05PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > Ben, > > For some battery technologies I would agree, but > not Lithium-based battery technologies. I've been reading Matt's point about lithium batteries, and watching as that same point has been developed and covered over and over; however, it doesn't apply. The technology that's actually used for EVs does not use the same type of lithium batteries that you're thinking of. LiFePO4 batteries are - I quote Wikipedia - "not prone to catching fire or exploding while recharging, and are more robust than the LiPo type." So - given that the reasoning here is based on false premises - the _only_ negative factors in using LiFePO4 batteries are cost and complexity of use (they require much more active involvement in maintenance and quite a bit more complexity in charging.) Other than that, I'll quote an excellent, concise statement from one of the best-informed posters from the electricboat group: An easy question in "how much gas do you usually use in a single day on the water?" Just thinking about the batteries, if you use golf cart style batteries, the usable equivelent of a 1 gallon gas tank will weigh about 800 pounds and cost about $2000. Upgrading to AGM will drop the weight to about 750 pounds and cost about $4000. Going high tech, you could buy Lithium cells that only weigh 350 pounds and cost about $6200. All of that for a "gas tank" that drive your boat as far as 1 gallon of gas today. -- Eric in the 'electricboats' Yahoo group The implication here - and it's a really good point of departure, IMO - is that if you use more than a couple of gallons of fuel a day, then electric may not be a good way for you to go. Another cost-relevant characteristic here is the number of cycles you can expect out of flooded lead-acids vs. AGMs vs. lithiums (I *think* this assumes an 80%DOD, or depth of discharge): FLA: 500 AGM: 800 LFP: 2000 (mfgrs. are stating 3000, but...) Depending on how often and how hard you cycle them, the above may represent a very long service life. E.g., if you run your boat in and out of the harbor every single weekend, and cycle the bank down to 20% every time you do, then you're looking at 500 weekends - pretty close to 10 years of service - just with FLAs. LFPs, well, your grandkids will inherit the set you bought. :) 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| 26090|26049|2011-06-28 08:41:46|Keith Green|Re: Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint.|I recently investigated a product called 'Insulladd' for a solar collector I was contemplating. Price is decent and you add it to the paint you're already going to be using. If you email them about your application, they will send you a spec sheet (PDF) and some links to examples of usage. you can order it online (even on ebay) as it comes in paper sacks and the price was quite reasonable. Keith On 6/28/2011 3:08 AM, Kim wrote: > Hi Rooster, Brent, and Ian ... > > Many thanks for your replies to my question about insulating paints. > > Thanks for the photo's too, Rooster. That's a very nice looking boat you've got there! > > I think I might use one of these insulating paints in the interior of my Swain 26 (on top of a zinc primer and and multiple coats of epoxy). There are a couple of manufacturers of similar products here in Australia. Hopefully, it might be quite OK for the not-too-warm, not-to-cold, sub-tropical climate I'll be doing most of my sailing in. As I see it, the advantages are ease of application, and, most importantly, no pockets of hidden corrosion that might start under spray-on foam. Might be cheaper too. However, if the insulating paint proves to be inadequate from an insulation point of view, then I guess I could also spray foam on top of it all afterwards. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: The current discussion about diesel -v- electric motors in boats is extremely interesting. I would like to put an electric motor in my boat; but (for me) it's very hard to divert from the "tried and true" systems that you know and understand! Diesel in Australia costs almost $1.60/liter ($6.06/gallon), and the price seems to keep going up on a daily basis! I believe it costs much more in Europe and some other parts of the World. At the same time, battery and solar power technology seem to be getting cheaper and better all the time. I can barely afford to fill up my car these days, and I hate to think what diesel is going to cost by the time my boat hits the water! On the face of it, there's a lot that's appealing about electric propulsion. > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: >> Hi Rooster ... >> >> Very interesting that you decided to use an insulating paint rather than spray foam! Is this the one that you used? ... >> >> http://www.mascoat.com/mascoat-marine-insulating-paint.html >> >> How many coats did you apply? Is it OK under the waterline inside? I can't see any mention of R-values on their website; but would you say it's as good as (say) 1/2" thick foam? >> >> If it works, this sounds like it might be a pretty good alternative to spray-on foam, especially for those who live in climates that don't experience extreme cold. Any further feedback that you can give of your experience with this product would be most appreciated! >> >> Cheers ... >> >> Kim. >> >> My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht >> ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 26091|26013|2011-06-28 10:40:24|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Hey Ben, >Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. Then you presume wrong Ben. I was working on a diesel fire yesterday. The working assumption with limiting air is, you are there to see the fire start and you act in the first 30 seconds, 10 seconds would be better. It is the same as with a grease fire in a pot on the stove. Get the lid on fast, and wait until everything cools off. Do not run off somewhere else, call 911, or anything else. If the fire is bigger than a dinner plate, and fuel is still flowing, do not even bother with the extinguisher. Kick the hatches shut, stuff wet towels, anything really, into the ventilators, then call 911. Keep bailing water on it. The fire will use up all the oxygen in the boat in about a minute. Take that minute to block even the smallest air leaks. The more minutes that go by with you being able to walk on the decks the better. Leave it closed up, even for hours, until one can detect no heat anywhere. Yes, everything inside the boat will stink, and much will need replacing. Even if it is a really bad fire that scorches the entire interior of a steel boat, if the air is limited, the maximum heat release rate is limited, and the hull temperature might be kept low, and the hull might be saved. Yes, if any real quantity of diesel is on fire, and, if you let it burn even a minute, the deck will likely be too hot to walk on, and the flames coming from the hatches too intense to go near. Shutting the hatches on a very small fire with no additional source of fuel might not be the best way to go. That is the type of fire a fire extinguisher is made for. No, current batteries do not approach the energy density of fuel. The energy density of gasoline is 43 MJ/kg and for really good lithium batteries, maybe 6 MJ/kg, NiMH I am seeing numbers around 0.4 MJ/kg, Lead-acid 0.15 MJ/kg. Dynamite is also about 6 MJ/kg. Lithium benefits from lithium's very low density when one measures by mass. On a volume basis there is less of a difference. I am not sure what batteries you were throwing in a fire. If a battery were to burn hot and rigorously, like a road flare, and more batteries packed together caused them to burn faster, and they burned in a way that was clearly not going to be extinguished with water or smothering or a fire extinguisher, I think that is more than sufficient to cause worry. I do not recall ever saying that batteries would explode. Fortunately, one can smell gasoline, diesel and even propane (thanks to mercaptans) at levels far lower than their combustible limits. If one detects it, one can cut all sources of ignition and hunt down the leak. There is always the possibility of vapours collecting in low places in the boat, undetected, and a high speed deflagration (boom), so no, fuels are not entirely safe either. I think Darren has the right idea. If you want to travel at hull speed for extended periods, then diesel is the way to go. If you want to use a motor for short maneuvers or clearing the jetty, then electric and alternative power is definitely the way to go. I sure do like my electric bow-thrust motor. If one wants to use electric for longer periods, one has to consider the source of the power, and the quantity of batteries. I am concerned about the longevity of electrical systems in a salt water environment. Someone posted a link to gasifer technology. I am wondering how a gasifier would run on dried and chopped-up palm fronds. Gasifiers have long worked for firewood. When stored, firewood does not produce flammable vapours, is not ignitable by a spark, and it even floats, to contribute to buoyancy should one take on water. Darren I think mentioned the Yuloh. Wow. Simple. It can be either emergency propulsion or an emergency rudder if you turn it 90 degrees. http://www.simplicityboats.com/yulohpage2.html. I think that is worth strapping to the ceiling of the salon. The handle might double as a spare spar for something else. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:14:15 -0600 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs a really competent source of ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than 30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset hut in just a few minutes. > Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. Again, closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the batteries, leading to a very fast discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through. With any high current system there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going bad and increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. 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] | 26092|26013|2011-06-28 11:21:55|Donal|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|John, Thanks for the source. Quite impressive, especially for the price. I have a long keeled boat about the same displacement as your old boat. I've thought the ideal would be two motors (each about half the total desired HP) , one on each side, both for maneuverability and redundancy. Close up the old aperture for better steering and less drag. The current engine is a 10hp Sabb with variable pitch prop for about 5.5 knots. Would there be any advantage to using the VP prop with electric drive? Last night at the marina I watched a large Beneteau motor down the aisle, stop, engage the bow thruster and turn a full 90 degrees and then motor into the slip. Modern seamanship with electric drive. The voltage stepping speed control is simple, bulletproof, but isn't it hard on motors to run below design voltage? donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "j" wrote: > The motor is a Manta permanent magnet motor, mail order from USA about US$650 from... > http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/manta.html > I used a (very expensive) controller (computerized), but I would not recommend that now, easier and cheaper by far to get a soft switch arrangement (a good DC electrician should be able to rig one up) to simply switch battery configuration to achieve different voltages and thus 3 different speeds (12v, 24v and 48v). Infinitely variable speeds not that useful. > The batteries I got from The Battery Clinic in Auckland and cost about $200 each back in 2004, but he has no consistent brand (mine were Sonnerheim). > The simplicity and reliability of the system is great, and doing away with a hole in the hull great also. By the way all that stored electric power was great for doing jobs on the boat too. | 26093|26013|2011-06-28 11:31:35|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Scary as hell. Lithium battery fires on aircraft (laptops) and how to extinguish them. At least with a boat one can go outside. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8 Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: bosdg@... Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:46:05 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Ben, For some battery technologies I would agree, but not Lithium-based battery technologies. Check out the video link below, that battery is likely only 1000 to 2000mAh, imagine a boat full of them (high temperature 130 to 150F from overcharging or high discharge loads can also start combustion). Combustion temperature is around 1400 to 1600 degrees F (760 to 871 C.) and will ignite adjacent packs. Lithium is the most attractive technology from the view of energy density, cycle depth and perhaps even total number of cycles, but there are drawbacks of using an alkali metal in a battery (remember the high school demonstration of the chunk of sodium metal in water). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21IySOMmFU4&feature=related Darren At 02:14 PM 27/06/2011, you wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Problems with hybrids? People are human, > mistakes happen, wear happens, corrosion > happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a > tank, one needs a really competent source of > ignition, and air. Closing the cabin air-tight > will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make > sure to leave it closed until the temperatures go down. > >Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat >in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour >before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss >cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. > >When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop >for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good >while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full >of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was >pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than >30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and >caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion >happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset >hut in just a few minutes. > > > Gasoline is far more flammable, but even > then, it can only burn on the surface, whether > it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. > Again, closing off the air can work, but > gasoline is more likely to produce jet-flames > where there is any leakage of fumes from > boiling fuel inside. At least these flames are > on the outside of the boat though. Any battery > system can short just outside the batteries, or > inside the batteries, leading to a very fast > discharge. I have seen wires from 3/0 to 750 > MCM arced clean through. With any high current > system there is also the potential of a high > ampere connection slowly going bad and > increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets underway, > >I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a >few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. >Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery >explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch >fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt >that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than >fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails >back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. > >Ben >-- >OKOPNIK CONSULTING >Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26094|26013|2011-06-28 11:47:42|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|>The voltage stepping speed control is simple, bulletproof, but isn't it hard on motors to run below design voltage? Complicated question. If the motor is stalled, that is no good. A standing torque, like winching, is going to make the motor draw more current, any, at low speed, the motor may not cool itself well enough. If the load is of a fluid-type, where the torque the motor has to produce greatly reduces with RPMs, then, that is better. Remember, one's stuffing box is going to provide a torque too. If the motor is free to turn under virtually no load, and it does turn, and it is a DC motor, then, running at reduced voltage should not be a problem. A pulse-width-modulation of current at a higher voltage is also an option. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: donalphilby@... Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:21:45 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) John, Thanks for the source. Quite impressive, especially for the price. I have a long keeled boat about the same displacement as your old boat. I've thought the ideal would be two motors (each about half the total desired HP) , one on each side, both for maneuverability and redundancy. Close up the old aperture for better steering and less drag. The current engine is a 10hp Sabb with variable pitch prop for about 5.5 knots. Would there be any advantage to using the VP prop with electric drive? Last night at the marina I watched a large Beneteau motor down the aisle, stop, engage the bow thruster and turn a full 90 degrees and then motor into the slip. Modern seamanship with electric drive. The voltage stepping speed control is simple, bulletproof, but isn't it hard on motors to run below design voltage? donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "j" wrote: > The motor is a Manta permanent magnet motor, mail order from USA about US$650 from... > http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/manta.html > I used a (very expensive) controller (computerized), but I would not recommend that now, easier and cheaper by far to get a soft switch arrangement (a good DC electrician should be able to rig one up) to simply switch battery configuration to achieve different voltages and thus 3 different speeds (12v, 24v and 48v). Infinitely variable speeds not that useful. > The batteries I got from The Battery Clinic in Auckland and cost about $200 each back in 2004, but he has no consistent brand (mine were Sonnerheim). > The simplicity and reliability of the system is great, and doing away with a hole in the hull great also. By the way all that stored electric power was great for doing jobs on the boat too. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26095|26013|2011-06-28 11:57:25|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben wrote: >The technology that's actually used for EVs does not >use the same type of lithium batteries that you're thinking of. LiFePO4 >batteries are - I quote Wikipedia - "not prone to catching fire or >exploding while recharging, and are more robust than the LiPo type." > >So - given that the reasoning here is based on false premises - the >_only_ negative factors in using LiFePO4 batteries are cost and >complexity of use (they require much more active involvement in >maintenance and quite a bit more complexity in charging.) "not prone" is not the same as "will never" The energy density is still there. >Another cost-relevant characteristic here is the number of cycles you >can expect out of flooded lead-acids vs. AGMs vs. lithiums (I *think* >this assumes an 80%DOD, or depth of discharge): > >FLA: 500 >AGM: 800 >LFP: 2000 (mfgrs. are stating 3000, but...) > >Depending on how often and how hard you cycle them, the above may >represent a very long service life. E.g., if you run your boat in and >out of the harbor every single weekend, and cycle the bank down to 20% >every time you do, then you're looking at 500 weekends - pretty close to >10 years of service - just with FLAs. LFPs, well, your grandkids will >inherit the set you bought. :) > >Ben Absolutely. Golf cart batteries will take a boat a long way running intermittently. I would prefer the sealed batteries, like AGMs. It is a sailboat, and the less that goes really wrong when things go non-vertical, the better. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26096|26013|2011-06-28 12:56:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Hi, Matt - On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:40:13AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Hey Ben, > > >Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. > > Then you presume wrong Ben. That happens occasionally. :) And that's why I said "presume". The statements you were making, however - things like "Closing the cabin air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire" - certainly made it look that way: they don't reflect the real world (something that I find very surprising to see coming from you!) You can't close anything air-tight on a typical cruising boat, and by the time you exhausted the oxygen in a cabin, the fire would have burned through the steel. Gasoline fires are even worse; I believe I've posted a link here to a series of boat fire pics that I saw from beginning to end. From the initial "whump" to the boat being on fire all the way down to the water was about 90 seconds - and this is confirmed by the photo time stamps, which I happened to have enabled at the time. Comparing any type of battery to that is not reasonable. I understand that you're working hard to defend the point you want to make, but hyperbole does not serve your argument, and in fact undermines it. > It is the same as with a grease fire in a pot on the stove. Get the lid on fast, and wait until everything cools off. The scale of the problem is slightly different. You'd need a 4-dimensional lid. :) I don't know of any pleasure boat in which the air access is so perfectly controlled, and can be shut off by a simple surface. > No, current batteries do not approach the energy density of fuel. Thank you; this makes my point that batteries are nowhere near as dangerous as fuel and that their fire danger by comparison with fuel is minimal. > If a battery were to burn hot and rigorously, like a road flare, and more batteries packed together caused them to burn faster, and they burned in a way that was clearly not going to be extinguished with water or smothering or a fire extinguisher, I think that is more than sufficient to cause worry. But, say, a hundred gallons of fuel *isn't*? Or is the proposition here something like "well, we're _already_ taking the fuel-based risk, but the batteries are a new and different type of risk"? > Fortunately, one can smell gasoline, diesel and even propane (thanks to mercaptans) at levels far lower than their combustible limits. If one detects it, one can cut all sources of ignition and hunt down the leak. There is always the possibility of vapours collecting in low places in the boat, undetected, and a high speed deflagration (boom), so no, fuels are not entirely safe either. In that case, batteries are _much_ simpler to take care of. You don't need to smell anything; simply put a temperature sensor next to them. If you feel like you want even more safety, cut the circuit with a large relay any time the temp exceeds some limit. There's nothing that's nearly as simple and as safe that you could do with fuel. > I think Darren has the right idea. If you want to travel at hull speed for extended periods, then diesel is the way to go. If you want to use a motor for short maneuvers or clearing the jetty, then electric and alternative power is definitely the way to go. And that is exactly the scenario I've proposed. I'm sorry that you seem to have missed it. > I am concerned about the longevity of electrical systems in a salt water environment. Connections which are properly crimped with good-quality tools and protected with silicon-lined shrink tubing should last for a very long time. I cut apart one that I made about 10 years previously, and it looked absolutely new. > Someone posted a link to gasifer technology. I am wondering how a gasifier would run on dried and chopped-up palm fronds. Gasifiers have long worked for firewood. When stored, firewood does not produce flammable vapours, is not ignitable by a spark, and it even floats, to contribute to buoyancy should one take on water. I would think that the brown gas - which is far more flammable than any of the fuels we've discussed - would be an issue, although I'm not sure whether it'll settle or rise. And palm fronds would have _very_ low energy density. But it's an approach that could be worth considering: Volvo has been talking about producing a wood-burning car. 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 | 26097|26013|2011-06-28 13:01:21|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:57:15AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > >So - given that the reasoning here is based on false premises - the > >_only_ negative factors in using LiFePO4 batteries are cost and > >complexity of use (they require much more active involvement in > >maintenance and quite a bit more complexity in charging.) > > "not prone" is not the same as "will never" The energy density is still there. Yes, but in the case of fuel, the term is "will ALWAYS". Please feel free to explain how that makes batteries less safe than fuel. 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| 26098|26013|2011-06-28 15:31:25|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|>they don't reflect the real world (something that I find >very surprising to see coming from you!) >I understand that you're working hard to defend the point >you want to make, but hyperbole does not serve your >argument, and in fact undermines it. >And that is exactly the scenario I've proposed. I'm sorry >that you seem to have missed it. Ben, your troll is showing again. My point is, it is complicated, think about the whole thing, what you want, what other options you have. Ben told one story of having arrived an hour after a diesel fire and seeing holes in the hull of a boat. I have seen dozens of fuel fires in equipment and vehicles of all sorts, and I cannot recall ever seeing holes burned clear through steel -- aluminium and alloys sure, frequently, but not always. I can tell you that holes burned clear through steel is certainly not common, and I can tell you for sure, it does not happen fast. Ben saw it, others may also have seen holes burned clear through steel by a fuel fire. All I am saying is, it is certainly not common, and it does not happen fast. Until there is a hole, there is a chance of choking the fire by closing off its supply of air. In any case I think I would be worried about polymer and glass windows and ports before I worry about holes in steel. 1 kg of petroleum requires about 16 kg of air to burn completely. That is about 13 cubic meters of air. If one has a 10 meter boat, there might be as much as 45 cubic meters of air in it. Yes, that is a lot of fire, a lot of heat, just using up the air in the boat. The first kg of fuel will burn pretty well. But if the boat is closed up quickly, the atmosphere inside is already becoming oxygen-poor and the fire is becoming less intense. Once the boat is "closed", lets say there is a 2mm gap all around the companionway hatch with a perimeter of 4 meters. That is a cross-section of 0.008 square meters. For 13 cubic meters of air to get into the boat in a minute, the air would have to be sucking in through that crack at an average of 27 meters per second or about 60 miles per hour. Take a 4 inch diameter ventilator: nearly the same. Three leaks of the same size, 20 mph. Then there is the issue of the combustion gases escaping. If the gases were cold, they would be 110% larger than the air that goes in. Lets say twice the volume at some elevated temperature. So, three-4 inch ventilators for air to get in, and six-4 inch ventilators for the combustion gases to get out of, at 20 mph. Nine 4 inch ventilators running at 20 mph -- that flow is screaming "plug me" to me. Really, I do not see a fire in a boat being able to suck air in that speed -- there is not enough vertical draft and temperature to generate the pressures needed, certainly not near the start. The combustion would be choked. The fire may go out, or may burn at a low level. Burning at a low level means, one has more time to run around an plug more gaps. Even throwing a wet canvas bag or one's wetted shirt over a port hole one never had a chance to close is really going to cut down the air flow. Fuel needs oxygen to burn and fuel uses up oxygen quickly. If one cannot reduce the air leaks into a boat down below the equivalent of nine 4-inch ventilators within a minute by closing hatches, and stuffing things in ventilators, I worry about its sea worthiness. In summary, Fuel needs air to release its energy. Fuel needs heat to continue the reaction and release its energy. A CO2 fire extinguisher yes displaces oxygen, but it also removes heat. Batteries need no oxygen or heat or ignition source to release their energy. There is typically no smell prior to the release. That is the huge difference between a huge battery bank and a fuel. Here is a situation. A wire is shorting, lets say a #1 wire is starting to burn its insulation. The copper itself has yet to become red-hot, but will soon. What do you do? Discharge a CO2 extinguisher on it ? Sure, that will keep the insulation from flaming, for a minute, but the current is still flowing. Then what ? Firefighters have asbestos gloves and a really long-handled pair of bypass cable cutters or bolt cutters to reach into a vehicle engine fire and cut the battery cables. I have seen a number of cases where, with a fire truck and all the water they can spray on it, fires have re-ignited from shorting battery cables on heavy vehicles (big batteries). What am I to do in a boat when a high-current short happens ? Ok, so I am already standing shin deep in water having tried to control the fire and the stupid thing keeps re-igniting. Now what ? OK, so plan ahead and have a giant battery disconnect switch on the outside of the boat. Good, provided the fire has not compromised the insulation on the cables leading to the disconnect switch -- I have seen that with remote battery disconnects before. Post-mounted fusible links ? -- much better, but, when the link blows, is the cable then going to be mechanically free ? Is that going to potentially cause more trouble? BTW, large cartridge fuses one might use on a 20-40 hp motor, can sound like a rifle when they blow, and cause a big flash of flames, and can cause damage. This is bad enough when they are in an industrial disconnect 30 feet away on the power-distribution wall in a factory, but, inside a closed boat where nothing but the mast-head light is more than 30 feet away, that is something to consider too. Or was the short caused by a dropped tool, shifting gear, or shifting sediment in the bottom of the battery itself, "before" the fuse ? Electrical cables seldom provide any indication they are about to short out before they do. For years a wire might lean on something with its insulation, and nothing will happen. Then one day, the insulation at that point finally wears through. The short happens, and within seconds, likely a fire. There may be no warning. This is in comparison to a fuel where one might smell the vapors in advance of the fire. When cables short out and cause a fire, the insulation protecting other wires is more vulnerable then, for instance, metal fuel lines -- more shorts are likely. Truly fire-resistant wire ? I have seen metal insulated wires, used in fire alarm systems. But, I can buy flexible copper line in any home despot that is very hard to burn through. High current connections can go bad slowly over time and cause a fire. Connections in a fuel line might start to leak, but that would smell, and one knows to go looking for it. That is not something that is likely to go unnoticed for long. A healthy fear of fuel will keep the nose alert, and allow one to mitigate problems. At the first whiff of fuel, pull the battery disconnect, kill the engine, dowse the lantern. Done, no source of ignition. Then close the fuel stop-cocks in case the leak is in a line and not at the tank. Get out the LED flashlight and find the problem. If one is contemplating a big battery system that approaches the equivalent of several kg of fuel, and has hundreds of liters of electrolyte in addition, then these are issues to consider. What would you do if something happened. Something to consider. I like my electric bow thruster. I like my fuel engines. I like my solar panels. I am tempted by an electric main engine, because not using the engine much suits me. But I will go into it thinking about all the new and different risks I am taking and what opportunities I am likely to have to mitigate risk. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26099|26013|2011-06-28 16:07:28|Paul Wilson|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|I am in New Plymouth,NZ with my Origami 36. It is on the hard right now and a bit of a mess but if anyone drops by, I will buy the first round......Paul On 6/28/2011 6:12 PM, j wrote: > > Hi Paul, > Yes I'm based in NZ ... formerly based in Lyttelton, now in Wanganui > ... sold my boat a few years ago (but removed the electric and > installed another diesel for the sale). My old electric motor is now > in a friend's H28 sailing out of Nelson. I will be building another > boat (probably one of Brent's) as soon as I can devote the 6 months to > do it. It will definitely have an electric motor. > The motor is a Manta permanent magnet motor, mail order from USA about > US$650 from... > http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/manta.html > I used a (very expensive) controller (computerized), but I would not > recommend that now, easier and cheaper by far to get a soft switch > arrangement (a good DC electrician should be able to rig one up) to > simply switch battery configuration to achieve different voltages and > thus 3 different speeds (12v, 24v and 48v). Infinitely variable speeds > not that useful. > The batteries I got from The Battery Clinic in Auckland and cost about > $200 each back in 2004, but he has no consistent brand (mine were > Sonnerheim). > The simplicity and reliability of the system is great, and doing away > with a hole in the hull great also. By the way all that stored > electric power was great for doing jobs on the boat too. > cheers, John. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Thompson wrote: > > > > Hi JHL, > > > > Are you in New Zealand by any chance? If so, I'd be interested in > > where you sourced your motor. > > > > Thanks, Paul Thompson > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Paul Thompson > > > > __._ > | 26100|26013|2011-06-28 17:42:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:31:23PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben, your troll is showing again. Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point - I don't believe that pointing out where someone is wrong is disrespectful - but you've just stepped over the line. In addition to your rudeness, you're also showing your ignorance: you clearly have no idea what a troll is, but have decided to use it as an insult. "YOU IS A BAD TING!" Perhaps you should learn what the term means before you make yourself look silly again? Just sayin'. > Ben told one story of having arrived an hour after a diesel > fire and seeing holes in the hull of a boat. I have seen dozens > of fuel fires in equipment and vehicles of all sorts, and I cannot > recall ever seeing holes burned clear through steel -- aluminium > and alloys sure, frequently, but not always. I just happen to have the picture on my laptop. Here you go, so you can further your education: http://okopnik.com/images/West_End,_Bahahamas_-_Fire-Damaged_Boat.jpg > Fuel needs heat to continue the reaction and release its energy. A CO2 fire > extinguisher yes displaces oxygen, but it also removes heat. > > Batteries need no oxygen or heat or ignition source to release their energy. > There is typically no smell prior to the release. That is the huge difference > between a huge battery bank and a fuel. Gasoline "releases its energy" from nothing more than a spark - reliably, every single time. It will catch fire from heat. It will catch fire from a powerful enough impact. It will catch fire from a combination of chemicals. It will catch fire from friction. If confined, it explodes with tremendous force - like no battery can. Batteries *may*, in some incredibly rare situation, catch fire. Almost none of the above situations apply to them. And in the greatest majority of the cases, 99% of their weight is lead - not an inflammable substance by any means. > Here is a situation. A wire is shorting, lets say a #1 wire is starting to burn its > insulation. The copper itself has yet to become red-hot, but will soon. > What do you do? Nothing, since my high-amperage circuit breaker has already taken care of it. Once I move that wire, I'll reset the breaker, and all will be well again. Meanwhile, you have fuel dripping from somewhere underneath your tank - while you're at sea. You can't reach the leak, and it's about to run under your hot engine. What do you do? > OK, so plan ahead and have a giant battery disconnect switch on the outside > of the boat. What for? You can easily put a breaker on each battery. If you want one for the entire circuit, there are very large fuses. [the rest of the panic-mongering with ridiculously funny arm-flapping snipped] Matt, for every battery-related problem you can invent, I can point out dozens of _real,_ dangerous problems with fuel. There's no point; this is not a contest you can win. Again, ICEs have their place - but your contentions are just ridiculous. You've climbed up a very shaky tree, and you look very silly in 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| 26101|26013|2011-06-28 18:27:33|Darren Bos|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben For the most part folks are still building their own electric systems for boats and I think that is where the last part of the discussion has merit. Everyone here understands the danger of gasoline, that is one of the big reasons why diesel is favored over gas for sailboat auxiliary power. The problem I see, and I think the point Matt was trying to make, is that batteries really aren't much safer. Especially when you consider that most folks understand the dangers of gas, but if you were to take a poll as you walked the docks at the marina I'm sure you'd find most folks know a lot less about batteries (even lead acid, let alone the more exotic types). So, you have batteries being installed in boats, more often than not with garage engineering and if your not aware how dangerous they can be, then you can have a big problem on your hands. I've seen the explosible kind of lithium polymer batteries advertised as power for electric boats and cars. Even lead acid vent hydrogen, which usually isn't a problem with one battery, but with an entire bank you have to start thinking about venting. I've seen boats and cars where the add on electronics weren't fused by previous owners as they tied into the battery, I cringe to think what would happen if such a person was to build an electric boat. Thanks for the tip on LiFePO4. The last time I had looked at them the technology wasn't so mature. The good news is that this area of battery tech is moving fast toward cheaper faster safer. Last night I watched a video of someone cutting a fully charge LiFePO4 cell in half with a hacksaw. That is more like the kind of technology I would want on board. Darren At 02:41 PM 28/06/2011, you wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:31:23PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ben, your troll is showing again. > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point - I don't believe >that pointing out where someone is wrong is disrespectful - but you've >just stepped over the line. In addition to your rudeness, you're also >showing your ignorance: you clearly have no idea what a troll is, but >have decided to use it as an insult. > >"YOU IS A BAD TING!" > >Perhaps you should learn what the term means before you make yourself >look silly again? Just sayin'. > > > Ben told one story of having arrived an hour after a diesel > > fire and seeing holes in the hull of a boat. I have seen dozens > > of fuel fires in equipment and vehicles of all sorts, and I cannot > > recall ever seeing holes burned clear through steel -- aluminium > > and alloys sure, frequently, but not always. > >I just happen to have the picture on my laptop. Here you go, so you can >further your education: > >http://okopnik.com/images/West_End,_Bahahamas_-_Fire-Damaged_Boat.jpg > > > Fuel needs heat to continue the reaction and > release its energy. A CO2 fire > > extinguisher yes displaces oxygen, but it also removes heat. > > > > Batteries need no oxygen or heat or ignition > source to release their energy. > > There is typically no smell prior to the > release. That is the huge difference > > between a huge battery bank and a fuel. > >Gasoline "releases its energy" from nothing more than a spark - >reliably, every single time. It will catch fire from heat. It will catch >fire from a powerful enough impact. It will catch fire from a >combination of chemicals. It will catch fire from friction. If confined, >it explodes with tremendous force - like no battery can. > >Batteries *may*, in some incredibly rare situation, catch fire. Almost >none of the above situations apply to them. And in the greatest majority >of the cases, 99% of their weight is lead - not an inflammable substance >by any means. > > > Here is a situation. A wire is shorting, lets > say a #1 wire is starting to burn its > > insulation. The copper itself has yet to become red-hot, but will soon. > > What do you do? > >Nothing, since my high-amperage circuit breaker has already taken care >of it. Once I move that wire, I'll reset the breaker, and all will be >well again. > >Meanwhile, you have fuel dripping from somewhere underneath your tank - >while you're at sea. You can't reach the leak, and it's about to run >under your hot engine. What do you do? > > > OK, so plan ahead and have a giant battery > disconnect switch on the outside > > of the boat. > >What for? You can easily put a breaker on each battery. If you want one >for the entire circuit, there are very large fuses. > >[the rest of the panic-mongering with ridiculously funny arm-flapping >snipped] > >Matt, for every battery-related problem you can invent, I can point out >dozens of _real,_ dangerous problems with fuel. There's no point; this >is not a contest you can win. Again, ICEs have their place - but your >contentions are just ridiculous. You've climbed up a very shaky tree, >and you look very silly in 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]| 26102|26049|2011-06-28 18:28:19|brentswain38|Re: Spray foam -v- "insulating" paint.|Sounds exactly like the stuff I used. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > I recently investigated a product called 'Insulladd' for a solar > collector I was contemplating. Price is decent and you add it to the > paint you're already going to be using. If you email them about your > application, they will send you a spec sheet (PDF) and some links to > examples of usage. you can order it online (even on ebay) as it comes in > paper sacks and the price was quite reasonable. > > > > Keith > > On 6/28/2011 3:08 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Rooster, Brent, and Ian ... > > > > Many thanks for your replies to my question about insulating paints. > > > > Thanks for the photo's too, Rooster. That's a very nice looking boat you've got there! > > > > I think I might use one of these insulating paints in the interior of my Swain 26 (on top of a zinc primer and and multiple coats of epoxy). There are a couple of manufacturers of similar products here in Australia. Hopefully, it might be quite OK for the not-too-warm, not-to-cold, sub-tropical climate I'll be doing most of my sailing in. As I see it, the advantages are ease of application, and, most importantly, no pockets of hidden corrosion that might start under spray-on foam. Might be cheaper too. However, if the insulating paint proves to be inadequate from an insulation point of view, then I guess I could also spray foam on top of it all afterwards. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > PS: The current discussion about diesel -v- electric motors in boats is extremely interesting. I would like to put an electric motor in my boat; but (for me) it's very hard to divert from the "tried and true" systems that you know and understand! Diesel in Australia costs almost $1.60/liter ($6.06/gallon), and the price seems to keep going up on a daily basis! I believe it costs much more in Europe and some other parts of the World. At the same time, battery and solar power technology seem to be getting cheaper and better all the time. I can barely afford to fill up my car these days, and I hate to think what diesel is going to cost by the time my boat hits the water! On the face of it, there's a lot that's appealing about electric propulsion. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > >> Hi Rooster ... > >> > >> Very interesting that you decided to use an insulating paint rather than spray foam! Is this the one that you used? ... > >> > >> http://www.mascoat.com/mascoat-marine-insulating-paint.html > >> > >> How many coats did you apply? Is it OK under the waterline inside? I can't see any mention of R-values on their website; but would you say it's as good as (say) 1/2" thick foam? > >> > >> If it works, this sounds like it might be a pretty good alternative to spray-on foam, especially for those who live in climates that don't experience extreme cold. Any further feedback that you can give of your experience with this product would be most appreciated! > >> > >> Cheers ... > >> > >> Kim. > >> > >> My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > >> ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > | 26103|26050|2011-06-28 18:30:43|brentswain38|Re: Welding on a foamed boat?|I scrape the paint off an inch beyond were it appears to have been eafected by the heat. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I've done a lot of welding on steel boats after foaming. On aluminium heat travels further and faster , which may help disssipate it , or may increase the risk of fire. > On steel, I scrape out three inches of foam beyond the weld, all around, then push a wet rag up under the weld zone and, prop it up there with a stick. Having someone inside with a hose is also a good idea. > Then as I weld, I cool the weld down quickly, after every inch of welding, before the heat has a chance to spread. The metalurgist and Atlas Alloys told me this quick quenching is preferable with stainless , but I don't know how it would affect aliminium. Then, how much strength you need at that point is another relevant question. > After welding on steel, its good idea to scrape the paint off well beyond where it is obviously affected, as it is affected far beyond the burnt part. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > I would like to install a hard dodger on my BS36(aluminium)after the boat is compleated. Is it possible to weld on the exterior after the boat has been foamed. Would the foam ignite? > > > > Tom Casault > > > | 26104|25950|2011-06-28 18:34:13|brentswain38|Re: Why Bother re-chining an Orgami|Right on . Do all the rest of the metal work fist , then decide if you have had enough and want to get sailing, or still want to radius the chine. Some enjoy the project more than the sailing. To each his own. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Why bother ? > > There are a lot of people who will build an orgami, and sail it, and that is great. There are limitations on the hull shape of an orgami -- one of the least deniable criticisms of orgami, and it goes beyond rounding out chines. Say someone wants to build a sailboat and be sure to get it in the water in some reasonable amount of time. They can start with orgami to get the overall dimensions. If welding turns out to be more of a chore than they had hoped then just finish it off and sail. If they get the hull done and deck and dog house in easily, and have their motor sitting there waiting, then can then ponder additional modifications. A pilot house is not so bad. Re-chining the entire boat might be a bit much for most. Alternately, one might want to fit a long blue-nose style keel (cut-away forefoot) by building it and its hull-faring as one piece and then welding it to the bottom of the orgami. After it is on, one might cut out the bilge to place ballast in the alternate keel. > > If after tackling a pilot house, the desire to weld a lot more has > disappeared (or the excess in the budget has been consumed) then one can stick with what orgami produced, and proceed with fitting it out as it is. The hull is > done when you say it is done. An orgami start might well suit a builder who imagines they want a rounded-chine boat as the orgami "frame" might be a lot faster to make than a set of framing, and it produces a boat-looking thing with a lot less work. Getting to a stage where it looks close to a water-tight boat, fast, might > also help with the political issues of "You want to what ?" that come > up in response to "I want to build a boat." > > > Why bother ? The point is flexibility of personal choice. And this idea allows one to address one of the criticisms of orgami, limits on hull shape, if one thinks that is important. > > Sounds win-win to me. > > So I say, why not, if you want to. > > Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: pault@... > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:24:39 +1200 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why bother? > > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > Several have been done that way. The trick is to cut out one piece at a time. One builder cut the whole chine out, without bracing inside to hold it up, and it sagged. Takes some jacking to get it back up. Bracing in advance is the easy way, or not cutting out too much at once. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Brent wrote: > > >> "It's not all that hard to pull together a 36 with ahard chine then piece > > >> by piece then cut out and weld in radiuse sections along the chine. " > > >> > > >> Very Interesting... the orgami becomes the frame. > > >> > > >> Matt > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26105|26013|2011-06-28 22:58:29|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Ben wrote: >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge offense when you are called on it. Yawn. >> Here is a situation. A wire is shorting, lets say a #1 wire is starting to burn its >> insulation. The copper itself has yet to become red-hot, but will soon. >> What do you do? > >Nothing, since my high-amperage circuit breaker has already taken care >of it. Once I move that wire, I'll reset the breaker, and all will be >well again. Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that is a little steep. Lets cut that to 25 hp: getting through a atoll passage quickly and safely, as someone else mentioned, is one of the things I would like my boat to be able to do. 25 hp electric might be acceptable to most people for this. 25 hp at 48V is 395 Amps. No one would design a circuit this close, but lets assume the circuit is breakered for 400 Amps. Lets further assume that a proper DC breaker is used. Yes, there are DC breakers, and they are quite different from AC breakers. And they are massively more expensive. Like thousands of dollars second hand, many thousands new. I see some rated for 250 Amps just over $100, but something tells me they do not have the same engineering in them to protect me. If I were going for 250 Amps, to keep 25 hp, I think I am looking at a 96 Volt system. There is a break point in silicon prices around 60 to 75V: anything above that is much more expensive. Now the high voltage, high amperage FET switching transistor for my home-build Pulse Width Modulating drive (so the power is variable) is going to be hundreds of dollars, but we could just go with a manual on-off control and toggle it. Or I could use partial bank selector switches, but that automatically mis-balances the battery bank (some batteries will be more drained than others), demanding a more complex charging circuit so no battery damage is caused in charging yet full capacity is regained. New problem though. While 30-50 Volts might be fatal under unusual circumstances, 96 Volts is far more likely to be. Further, a shock from DC causes muscle-lock, not convulsions like AC, and is far more likely to lock a person in position and continue the shock. So, hands up everyone who had a 120 V AC shock in their life and the shock caused their muscles to pull away ? That may not happen with DC. That unpleasant fraction of an instant can last a very long time with DC. Typically someone else pulls the victim off with a non-conductor or does a quarter-back sack to knock them both clear of contact. Fortunately, after my instruction on safety, not one of my 1000 students ever received a high voltage DC shock in the lab. One got a good AC shock, and went to the hospital but she was completely OK. Yes DC is entirely different, get locked onto 96V and it will cook a person slowly from the inside. I think I remember a weiner takes 20 seconds. 2000 Volts is far more merciful. I hope someone hears the screaming -- if the diaphragm is not locked... but in that case that one cannot scream, one would probably asphyxiate first. A colleague has the photos and for some reason thought I might want to see them. Are the dangers of high voltage DC obvious ? Will the guy selling you the thousands of dollars DC motor tell you about this ? The scrap guy selling you the thousands of dollars motor for hundreds ? The guy selling you the giant telecomm batteries ? Not likely. You cannot see DC dangers or smell them. There is no prickly feeling when one gets too close that will warn a person off. It is a real, unfamiliar, and hidden hazard. If 100 people who do not know the dangers of a high voltage DC shock work on high voltage DC, how many will actually cook some muscles and walk around like House for the rest of their lives ? How many will actually die ? Probably not many... if it is a one-time project they are not interacting with on a daily basis, in a salt water environment. I hope my "hyperbole" will have the best chance of preventing the end of someone's sailing dream through not knowing, and an unfortunate accident. There is a place for accurate representations of low-probability events. I do not want to see you in any of my photos. Anyway, back to 48 V DC.... Maybe one can find a bargain 400A DC breaker somewhere for a few hundred and sleep well knowing they did not spend more than the cost of a quality diesel for a quality breaker. Or maybe one might take a chance with an AC rated breaker. The wrong AC breaker likes to become an arc welder. Remember the Terminator movies ? Remember how the time-travel involves an expanding sphere that cuts everything and makes a void ? That is what a good arc in a breaker does -- a sphere is cut out of the middle of it. I have seen missing spheres from the size of a ping-pong ball to a basketball size. The basketball one left gobs of copper stuck to a window 40 feet away. I imagine the people around it when it went off really did not care if it was a fuel explosion or an arc "explosion". I had the photos (changed jobs). Or maybe Ben was talking about DC-rated fuses. At a good fraction of $100 each. How many spares should one stow ? Well, depends, worst case, on how many tries it takes to find where the wire has shorted. Or maybe put an AC breaker after the expensive AC drive controller -- great, but that leaves circuitry between the batteries and the drive controller unprotected. I am not suggesting Ben would make any of these mistakes. But people reading Ben's posts might. Still there has been no comment on deteriorating connections. One can call this an inevitable problem. In high current industrial applications, one hires an infrared scanning company to scope your plant every 6 months to look for connections that are slowly going bad and running hot. Looking through the scope, one sees hot spots from a distance, and can walk up to the panel and trace the problem to a particular connection. High current == fast developing problems. I have the photos. The most interesting thing is, one can see immediately if other parallel connections look similar on the thermal scan. Sort of a "which one does not belong game" that a pre-schooler could play. This is easy in 3-phase AC because there are 2 other parallel paths to compare to. No so much in single phase DC -- every component will have its own unique thermal signature. What is just a variation in components, and what are the early indications of a deteriorating connection are much harder to see. And what is one going to do ? Stick their hand in a mid-voltage high amp circuit and start feeling around for warm stuff ? Or use the Canadian Tire remote temperature meter and record temperatures on all the connections (while someone else drives the boat) on a regular basis and look for an exponential trend -- really hard to see in the early growth. (If you are going to use a cheap non-contact thermal gun instead of a proper FLIR gun costing thousands, to check for thermal buildups in high amp connections, then at least use black adhesive dots, like inventory dots from Staples as a target, so the surfaces you shoot are all the same thermal properties. It helps reduce uncertainty. The glue might do odd things with temperature, giving another clue when things start changing. Might save your life.) And then there is the effect of salt to accelerate that. I had a case where a block heater cord was plugged into a really nice extension cord and that into the outlet, to keep a fleet vehicle ready to go in the winter. Only 15 Amps. Problem is, the crew left the extension wrapped around the grill of the truck all winter, and never unplugged the block heater plug from the extension. Road salt got into the nice extension cord and corroded the connection. The crew who used the truck every day did not notice a problem. They do not call me when things have worked out well. Fortunately it was only a big truck. Is this going to be a problem in every electrical boat ? No. Is it going to be one more thing to watch out for in every electric boat ? Absolutely for sure. Even if you silicon wrap your connections, even if you use conductive paste, even if you check the torque on high current connections regularly, even if you take temperature measurements of connections. I have been told that an arc cannot be sustained under about 14-18 Volts, that one requires 30-40 Volts to make a really stable arc (my arc welder reads about 35V when it is not loaded), and 300 and some Volts to spontaneously start an arc without aid of mechanical movement. The common garage experience with 12 and even 24 Volts does not prepare people for working on DC Voltages capable of sustaining a really good arc. The alternative, go with 12V ? At 25 hp, that is nearly 1,600 Amps. What size of cables would you need for that ... of course I know, but the point is, would the average reader here ? Would they know where to get them, how to properly join them ? BTW, cables that size are crimped, with special tools, sort of like a hydraulic hose. Does it always work out right ? Nope, I have the pictures of that too, and coincidentally, it was a "48V" DC system that time. None of these are insurmountable problems, if one has money and knows what they are doing. As Darren said: >Especially when you consider >that most folks understand the dangers of gas, >but if you were to take a poll as you walked the >docks at the marina I'm sure you'd find most >folks know a lot less about batteries (even lead >acid, let alone the more exotic types). >So, you have batteries being installed in boats, more >often than not with garage engineering and if >your not aware how dangerous they can be, then >you can have a big problem on your hands. A-men Darren. Ben said: >Meanwhile, you have fuel dripping from somewhere underneath your tank - >while you're at sea. You can't reach the leak, and it's about to run >under your hot engine. What do you do? I might stop using my engine a the first whiff, power off the electronics, eat cold canned food and trail mix, and use sails to get to shore. Yes the leak in the bottom of the fuel tank: that sure that can happen, no denying that. And there are biologically mediated corrosion reasons in diesel tanks why that might happen much faster than expected. Seen that too, have the pictures. Really, I think though, fuel tanks are pretty low-tech, and making one that is more than sufficient, that should out-last your boat, and maintaining bactericide additive levels, is really not rocket science. It is well-understood boat-craft. The gasoline tank in my boat is 50 years old and there is not a whiff of gasoline anywhere about the tank or engine. Really. I thought the tank was bone-dry empty because there there was no smell. Now, realistically, it is a 50 year old tank, and I am going to look at it really carefully, maybe take my portable ultrasound out and check it. I may replace it anyway, but, just sayin. Please show me a 50 year old electrical system that has been to sea. Since most people are probably going to use a flammable fuel to power their dinghy and stove, perhaps their fridge, maybe the heating for the cabin, all boat operators must be hyper-vigilant about fuels anyway. They must be aware of all ignition sources on their boat and know how to terminate them. Going with an electric drive is an entire collection of new ignition sources for other fuels, and has its own challenges. Going with a (non-turbo, water-cooled manifold marine) diesel drive actually reduces the ignition sources. Yes Ben is right, flammable vapours, ignited by a spark are deadly. I got a new batch of photos last week. About 200 of them. Fact is, both guys smelled the vapours and knew the hazard immediately. One guy ran away and survived, the other one ran to shut off the leak to try to protect others, and did not survive. A very sad case but the man who died made a choice. There are pictures with kids, and backyard do-it-yourselfers too. Like the guy who was working on the gas-line of his snowmachine in the winter in a heated office, 8 feet from a gas furnace. Or the executive who was spray painting in his basement near a gas water heater. I have those pictures too. Yes, flammable vapours are plenty dangerous. I do not want to see any of you in my pictures, I want to see you in your pictures on your boat, in a stunning locale. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26106|26050|2011-06-29 01:06:21|badpirate36|Re: Welding on a foamed boat?|Thanx for the info Brent. I think I'll push ahead with the dodger first. But, it's nice to know I can still weld on the things I'll forget /.o) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I scrape the paint off an inch beyond were it appears to have been eafected by the heat. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I've done a lot of welding on steel boats after foaming. On aluminium heat travels further and faster , which may help disssipate it , or may increase the risk of fire. > > On steel, I scrape out three inches of foam beyond the weld, all around, then push a wet rag up under the weld zone and, prop it up there with a stick. Having someone inside with a hose is also a good idea. > > Then as I weld, I cool the weld down quickly, after every inch of welding, before the heat has a chance to spread. The metalurgist and Atlas Alloys told me this quick quenching is preferable with stainless , but I don't know how it would affect aliminium. Then, how much strength you need at that point is another relevant question. > > After welding on steel, its good idea to scrape the paint off well beyond where it is obviously affected, as it is affected far beyond the burnt part. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would like to install a hard dodger on my BS36(aluminium)after the boat is compleated. Is it possible to weld on the exterior after the boat has been foamed. Would the foam ignite? > > > > > > Tom Casault > > > > > > | 26107|26049|2011-06-29 01:52:35|badpirate36|Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats.|>Tom What part of the world are you in? I'm building a BS40 but it is >foamed and interior is partially in. Gord Yeah, I probably should have mentioned my location. I'm in Vancouver, BC, Gord. Is your boat on the left coast too? >If you are coming to courtenay bc you can look at the one i just >bought--interior about 45% finished by the old owner. MarkH That would be great Mark. Pick a day, weekends work best for me. and Congradulation on your new boat! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Starting from Victoria, Ocean Boy is in Esquimalt harbour. > Babara Allen, Panache, and another 36 are in Maple Bay and Genoa Bay, Dove 4 is in Ladysmith Maritime Society's docks, ditto Seramin, and Puna in Newcastle marina in Nananimo, and Viski, behind the Muddy waters pub, and another 36 at the Nanaimo Yacht club dock. My Island may be at the Gibsons govt dock in Gibsons. > Dove 2 may still be in Deep Bay marina south of the govt dock in Deep Bay. Moon Raven and another 36 may still be at the govt dock in Comox and Lungta, another 36, anchored west of the condos in Comox. That is if they haven't left for the summer. > Another 36 is under contruction ( overdue for launching) on 2nd avenue in Courtenay, and another on 26th and Willemar. > Another 36, is in Sheerwater BC. A 26 is under construction in Queen Charlotte City. Several boats, 36 and 26, are under construction in Alaska. > Thanx for all the leads Brent. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > I'm fitting out my BS36(aluminium). I am ready(almost) to start the foaming process. Although I have gotten many ideas from the many photo's on this site and others for the interior. It's time to step on-board a finished origami or better yet one just a little further on than mine, and try to tie all this together /.o) So, if anybody has a little time over the summer and would like to show off their boat, I'll be on time and won't stay long. > > Thanx > > Tom Casault > > badpirate@ > > > | 26108|26013|2011-06-29 02:19:56|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben wrote: > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be The Ultimate Authority on everything. Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to call you on your lies. And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make what I'm saying an insult. > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > is a little steep. [...] You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. 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| 26109|26013|2011-06-29 05:15:44|j|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Donal, wouldn't that mean two sets of shafts/stuffing boxs etc? Maneuverability would be improved, though, and no prop walk. If your boat can do 5.5 knots with a 10hp Diesel, then it must be a lot more efficient hull than mine was (mind you I never got around to grinding down the welds below water line, so not exactly smooth) ... You could probably use much smaller motors. I've heard of wheel hub motors made for those little trucks they haul airplanes around with, only about 2 or 3 hp each ... and very well made. I like the idea of two smaller motors as long as the thrust from two smaller props would be about the same, but not sure if they would. My knowledge of electrical engineering is rudimentary, but I don't think the voltage stepping affects the motor much, it just runs at a slower rpm but draws the same amps and thus lower hp. Not sure about this discussion of shorting, and battery explosions. Most boats carry batteries, and some have even bigger banks than mine, just for their interior need, not to mention diesel engine starting batteries. Bow thruster engines and anchor winches would pose the same kind of risks, especially as they are usually so remote from the batteries, and cable length is a factor in DC power and the heat generated. My cables were only about 6' long and way overrated. I guess you have to be careful with any potential dangers, but also balanced with probability of the risk. Everything about a boat needs to be well thought out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Donal" wrote: > > John, > > Thanks for the source. Quite impressive, especially for the price. > > I have a long keeled boat about the same displacement as your old boat. I've thought the ideal would be two motors (each about half the total desired HP) , one on each side, both for maneuverability and redundancy. Close up the old aperture for better steering and less drag. > > The current engine is a 10hp Sabb with variable pitch prop for about 5.5 knots. Would there be any advantage to using the VP prop with electric drive? > > Last night at the marina I watched a large Beneteau motor down the aisle, stop, engage the bow thruster and turn a full 90 degrees and then motor into the slip. Modern seamanship with electric drive. > > The voltage stepping speed control is simple, bulletproof, but isn't it hard on motors to run below design voltage? > > donal > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "j" wrote: > > > The motor is a Manta permanent magnet motor, mail order from USA about US$650 from... > > http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/manta.html > > I used a (very expensive) controller (computerized), but I would not recommend that now, easier and cheaper by far to get a soft switch arrangement (a good DC electrician should be able to rig one up) to simply switch battery configuration to achieve different voltages and thus 3 different speeds (12v, 24v and 48v). Infinitely variable speeds not that useful. > > The batteries I got from The Battery Clinic in Auckland and cost about $200 each back in 2004, but he has no consistent brand (mine were Sonnerheim). > > The simplicity and reliability of the system is great, and doing away with a hole in the hull great also. By the way all that stored electric power was great for doing jobs on the boat too. > | 26110|26013|2011-06-29 08:42:28|Matt Malone|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Lies ? I do not lie to, or for my clients. And I am not lying here. Every case I referenced is a real case. Every failure I referenced is a real failure that happened in a commercial or industrial installation and I personally investigated unless I said otherwise. If you have some evidence that I am seeing a distorted picture because I only see the wrecks, and not all the cases where things work out fine, then that is a different argument. It is quite possible that my research sourcing parts for my posts has missed some inexpensive alternative. Lets hear about the other way to do it, some pre-packaged module that can be used cleverly. From time to time, in posts like these, my math is off by a factor of two or pi or something, and sure that can change the costs of things by a lot. But that does not sound like what you are talking about Ben, or you would have pointed that out. I believe you think I am making up these cases. If there is any particular case that you particularly doubt, that you think never happened, think I am making up, then please point it out. If it is one that is settled or gone to trial already, I may well be able to get permission from my client to show the photos, give a particular explanation of what lead up to the day, and what happened on the day. I never show photos with people in them, it will be machinery only. In future, I may only mention those cases I have done in Florida, so that Ben might visit the sites and verify these things really happened. Unfortunately most of the cases I have done in Florida are mechanical damage on land as a result of hurricanes. I can assure the other members of this group that I am not trying to mislead you, that the hazards that I mention are ones I have seen the consequences of, and I am personally considering and will carefully investigate and plan around before deciding to go electric. Electric might make it easier to pass inspections, after all, mine is a really old boat made long before much of the modern eco laws. Even a cursory look in the engine compartment is likely to attract more questions as it is right now. I have concerns about being delayed in foreign jurisdictions and will weigh that into the decisions I make. In the end, my boat project budget is far smaller than the replacement cost of most of the cases I work on. I could not afford to repeat the failures I have investigated. I might be mistaken in this assumption, but I imagine that most people's boat budget here is similarly limited and appreciate knowing the opportunities and hazards based on real-world experience. I sure do, because, there are many things that people talk about here that I have never done, and would like to do one day, as safely as practical. Getting back to electric drives... I might be tempted to buy a used electric lift truck like someone here suggested. I seems it has all of the systems I would need and they all match in specifications. An industrial quality motor, a controller, a battery bank. Used lift trucks run about a dollar a pound: a lift truck that can lift 2000 pounds, generally costs about $2000. Yes, it may be more or less, depending on how many plants are closing in your area and disposing of used equipment. I expect taking a lift truck apart would have plenty of hazards, however, not having done it yet, I have no specific suggestions. As far as failures, there is a lift truck in nearly every plant and warehouse, some plants have many. I have seen a number of fires in such settings. I cannot recall just right now if I have seen an electric lift truck that was the cause of the fire. I will ask my colleagues before I consider the electric option further and dismantling a lift truck in particular. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:19:46 -0600 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben wrote: > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be The Ultimate Authority on everything. Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to call you on your lies. And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make what I'm saying an insult. > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > is a little steep. [...] You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. 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] | 26111|26111|2011-06-29 09:57:05|SHANE ROTHWELL|BEN...... bit of a heads up.....|Hey Guys, Here we go again! Has anyone else noticed that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON EVERYTHING, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE... is at it again...... Again, scratch the surface and what comes up sure as hell ain't shinola! I believe the technical term for the adolecent,  is bullshit. The legal term, aside from a complete misrepresentation, how could it be anything other than FRAUD? And on how many occasions has this happened? 5-6-8???? And, on how many occasions, has that which ben spews, been outright bloody dangerous? Thrice? Five times? More? And do YOU trust this guy? Just asking. Shane . Posted by: "Ben Okopnik" ben@...   pectus_roboreus1 Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:19 pm (PDT) On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben wrote: > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be The Ultimate Authority on everything. Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to call you on your lies. And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make what I'm saying an insult. > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > is a little steep. [...] You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. Ben Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) Posted by: "Ben Okopnik" ben@...   pectus_roboreus1 Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:19 pm (PDT) On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben wrote: > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be The Ultimate Authority on everything. Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to call you on your lies. And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make what I'm saying an insult. > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > is a little steep. [...] You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. Ben | 26112|26049|2011-06-29 10:00:23|SHANE ROTHWELL|Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats.|Hey Gord,   We're about 1/2 way between Nanaimo & Courtenay, swing bye on your way up to see Tom.   Cheers, Shane         Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats. Posted by: "badpirate36" badpirate@...   badpirate36 Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:52 pm (PDT) >Tom What part of the world are you in? I'm building a BS40 but it is >foamed and >interior is partially in. Gord Yeah, I probably should have mentioned my location. I'm in Vancouver, BC, Gord. Is your boat on the left coast too? >If you are coming to courtenay bc you can look at the one i just >>bought--interior about 45% finished by the old owner. MarkH That would be great Mark. Pick a day, weekends work best for me. and Congradulation on your new boat!| 26113|26050|2011-06-29 15:36:53|brentswain38|Re: Welding on a foamed boat?|No matter how careful you are to get everything welded down before painting, you always ends up with some after thoughts to be welded on afterwards. Such is boatbuilding. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > Thanx for the info Brent. I think I'll push ahead with the dodger first. But, it's nice to know I can still weld on the things I'll forget /.o) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I scrape the paint off an inch beyond were it appears to have been eafected by the heat. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I've done a lot of welding on steel boats after foaming. On aluminium heat travels further and faster , which may help disssipate it , or may increase the risk of fire. > > > On steel, I scrape out three inches of foam beyond the weld, all around, then push a wet rag up under the weld zone and, prop it up there with a stick. Having someone inside with a hose is also a good idea. > > > Then as I weld, I cool the weld down quickly, after every inch of welding, before the heat has a chance to spread. The metalurgist and Atlas Alloys told me this quick quenching is preferable with stainless , but I don't know how it would affect aliminium. Then, how much strength you need at that point is another relevant question. > > > After welding on steel, its good idea to scrape the paint off well beyond where it is obviously affected, as it is affected far beyond the burnt part. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to install a hard dodger on my BS36(aluminium)after the boat is compleated. Is it possible to weld on the exterior after the boat has been foamed. Would the foam ignite? > > > > > > > > Tom Casault > > > > > > > > > > | 26114|26111|2011-06-29 15:58:40|brentswain38|Re: BEN...... bit of a heads up.....|Reminds me of my first trip to Tahiti. All the cruisers there had crossed the same ocean, and thus considered themselves experts. All had experienced the same conditions, and all had drawn different conclusions. Boy , the arguements were heated! Only people who are willing to believe strongly in what their conclusions are, are capable of advancing human progress, in any field. Thinking outside the box invites attack, and it takes a strong will to resist being told how to think. The wishy washy simply comply with groupthink conservatism, and would rather let others tell them how things are, rather than question anything, and risk not being "One of the group." Being part of groupthink is more imporant to them than being right, innovative , or creative. They have contributed absolutely nothing to progress. This is a free speech site , unlike many others. Only non boat related, commercial spam is unwelcome here. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > Hey Guys, > > Here we go again! > > Has anyone else noticed that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON EVERYTHING, THE UNIVERSE > AND HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE... is at it again...... > > Again, scratch the surface and what comes up sure as hell ain't shinola! > > I believe the technical term for the adolecent,  is bullshit. > The legal term, aside from a complete misrepresentation, how could it be > anything other than FRAUD? > > And on how many occasions has this happened? 5-6-8???? > > And, on how many occasions, has that which ben spews, been outright bloody > dangerous? > > Thrice? Five times? More? > > And do YOU trust this guy? > > Just asking. > > > Shane > > > > . > Posted by: "Ben Okopnik" ben@...   pectus_roboreus1 > Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:19 pm (PDT) > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ben wrote: > > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. > > "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither > an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being > an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and > you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be > The Ultimate Authority on everything. > > Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand > all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal > ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of > obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That > won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to > call you on your lies. > > And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to > slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently > corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like > you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that > you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make > what I'm saying an insult. > > > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > > > is a little steep. > > [...] > > You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and > apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly > hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. > > Ben > Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) > Posted by: "Ben Okopnik" ben@...   pectus_roboreus1 > Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:19 pm (PDT) > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ben wrote: > > >Matt, I've treated you with respect until this point > > > > No, you have not, you do it to everyone, little insults and then take huge > > offense when you are called on it. Yawn. > > "Called on it"? You haven't "called" me on anything - you have neither > an actual point nor the balls. All that's happening is that you're being > an asshole because your so-called "expertise" is being challenged - and > you just can't stand anything like that, since you simply *have* to be > The Ultimate Authority on everything. > > Clue: just because you're an engineer doesn't mean that you understand > all technology. You have, in fact, been demonstrating your abysmal > ignorance in this area and trying to hide behind very tall stacks of > obfuscatory bullshit that you obviously use to snow your clients. That > won't work here: you see, by contrast with you, I _do_ have the balls to > call you on your lies. > > And _that_ is how I speak to worthless gits who have not only managed to > slide up their own rectums but have also gotten huffy about being gently > corrected. I don't do "little insults"; that's for little wankers like > you. If I'm going to insult someone, I make it obvious. The fact that > you don't like what I'm saying is purely your problem, and does not make > what I'm saying an insult. > > > Lets say one is running a 40 hp motor from 48V. That is about 633 Amps -- that > > > is a little steep. > > [...] > > You're no longer worth talking to. Should you decide to be a man and > apologize, I may change my mind, but for the moment, all your (mostly > hyperbolic) verbiage is just so much noise. > > Ben > | 26115|26111|2011-06-29 17:23:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: BEN...... bit of a heads up.....|On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 07:58:31PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Reminds me of my first trip to Tahiti. All the cruisers there had > crossed the same ocean, and thus considered themselves experts. All > had experienced the same conditions, and all had drawn different > conclusions. Boy , the arguements were heated! [grin] Been there (although not Tahiti - yet), done that. > Only people who are willing to believe strongly in what their > conclusions are, are capable of advancing human progress, in any > field. Thinking outside the box invites attack, and it takes a strong > will to resist being told how to think. The wishy washy simply comply > with groupthink conservatism, and would rather let others tell them > how things are, rather than question anything, and risk not being > "One of the group." > Being part of groupthink is more imporant to them than being right, > innovative , or creative. > They have contributed absolutely nothing to progress. The other part is that society has a lot of inertia. It takes quite a bit of force, time, or both to get a new idea through - in fact, there's a large contingent of conservative-at-all-costs, die-before-you-change idiots who will do anything to prevent change. Brent, you know that better than most people, since what you're doing attracts them like a magnet; they just *have* to prove you wrong! > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > > > Hey Guys, > > > > Here we go again! [laugh] Oh, dear. If Matt ever needed any proof of having screwed up, here it is. Having Shane agree with you is like getting French-kissed by an AIDS patient with halitosis... 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| 26116|26013|2011-06-29 18:47:41|Barney Treadway|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|J or anyone else, So with your experience, how would you power your next boat? More storage (batteries), more power from the motor, more energy regeneration or exactly the same? I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using 20amps. I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? What brand or specs did the electric motor have? I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric hp against displacement. Thanks! Barney PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for peace of mind. On 6/27/2011 3:09 AM, j wrote: > > Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... > from what I have read there have been no posts from people with > personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless > steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in > 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... > then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with > 10hp electric motor. > Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a > sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most > places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing > stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it > very nearly cost me the boat ... > My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries > (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so > altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The > motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall > lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went > below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was > what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over > the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric > 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps > so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator > plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the > diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed > something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it > goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge > swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while > tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power > saved hours ... > > I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not > practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really > want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so > little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are > almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > cheers, JHL > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, > when > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > That, I can do. > > > > > > 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 > > > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26117|26013|2011-06-29 21:52:19|Ben Okopnik|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:47:37PM -0600, Barney Treadway wrote: > > I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using 20amps. As J mentioned, that's in pretty much ideal conditions - but it's a nice thing to know when you need to make the distance. > I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the > 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? Electrics have essentially a flat torque response, so you get max torque from the very start. The average boat diesel, on the other hand, spends most of its time putting out some fraction of its peak torque. E.g., the average 50HP diesel (e.g., a Perkins 4-108) actually puts out about 36HP max when all is said and done. In normal use, it'll put out around 14-18HP. (Cross-check: the average cruising boat burns 3/4 to 1 gallon of diesel per hour. Diesels - any and all of them - produce 18HP/gal/hr, within fairly tight tolerances.) Even then, some of that is lost in the transmission, etc. So, maybe 10-12HP gets to the prop shaft. With an electric motor, none of that applies: on the average, close to 90% of the power you put in is what you get out. Thus, J replacing his 45HP Yanmar with a 10kW electric motor (~13.3HP) is a very reasonable swap - although he would have somewhat less top end, for average running, it would have much more power at the bottom and lots of push as you throttled up toward the top. Of course, I'm basing all this on the research that I've done up until now - no practical experience with that kind of setup yet. But I'm definitely counting my pennies and checking out all the possibilities. > I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric > hp against displacement. Well, here's a set of curves for a 45' Morgan sailboat: http://okopnik.com/misc/ibl360.pdf You could also get one of these, free, by contacting most of the specialty shops that sell and install these (I got the above from http://electricyacht.com .) > PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for > peace of mind. At least two "electric sailors" that I know of do. And that's exactly what they say they get out 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| 26118|26013|2011-06-29 23:39:53|Matt Malone|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Some basic properties of DC Motors: http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html Note the torque-rotation speed graph, the nearly straight-line decline from stall torque, and the next one that explains maximum power. The nearly straight line means, maximum shaft power is very close to half maximum RPMs. Torque and power drop off quickly beyond that. It is diesel that offers a flatter torque curve, with a peak at about half of maximum RPM. But power is torque times RPM, so, the power curve has a sharp peak at high RPMs. Props need a lot more power at higher rpms. Electrics are impressive at getting a boat started, but a fuel engine is better suited for maintaining a good cruising speed and a better maximum speed, getting more out of the prop. Consequently, electric motors are really good for (relatively) large prop thrust motors at moderate speed, for docking. They really have an impressive "bite" on the water for quick changes of direction. There might be a better design of prop, or a feathering propeller that will get more range or speed out of your Amp-Hours and particular motor respectively. It is worth investigating. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:52:04 -0600 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:47:37PM -0600, Barney Treadway wrote: > > I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using 20amps. As J mentioned, that's in pretty much ideal conditions - but it's a nice thing to know when you need to make the distance. > I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the > 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? Electrics have essentially a flat torque response, so you get max torque from the very start. The average boat diesel, on the other hand, spends most of its time putting out some fraction of its peak torque. E.g., the average 50HP diesel (e.g., a Perkins 4-108) actually puts out about 36HP max when all is said and done. In normal use, it'll put out around 14-18HP. (Cross-check: the average cruising boat burns 3/4 to 1 gallon of diesel per hour. Diesels - any and all of them - produce 18HP/gal/hr, within fairly tight tolerances.) Even then, some of that is lost in the transmission, etc. So, maybe 10-12HP gets to the prop shaft. With an electric motor, none of that applies: on the average, close to 90% of the power you put in is what you get out. Thus, J replacing his 45HP Yanmar with a 10kW electric motor (~13.3HP) is a very reasonable swap - although he would have somewhat less top end, for average running, it would have much more power at the bottom and lots of push as you throttled up toward the top. Of course, I'm basing all this on the research that I've done up until now - no practical experience with that kind of setup yet. But I'm definitely counting my pennies and checking out all the possibilities. > I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric > hp against displacement. Well, here's a set of curves for a 45' Morgan sailboat: http://okopnik.com/misc/ibl360.pdf You could also get one of these, free, by contacting most of the specialty shops that sell and install these (I got the above from http://electricyacht.com .) > PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for > peace of mind. At least two "electric sailors" that I know of do. And that's exactly what they say they get out 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26119|26013|2011-06-30 02:04:49|wild_explorer|Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|I agree with Matt about analyzing boat's power propulsion system without braking it into the parts. What a point to talk about how much power lost in the transmission/wires/etc. if propeller do not match your drive system and you loose 50% of the power delivered to the prop shaft just because of it? So, you need to combine/match drive system (any type) AND propeller. Then we can estimate efficiency of such system. Shaft RPMs will make big difference. So, we can take some "universal" propeller suitable for the 36-40ft boat as a start. I would like to see WHOLE set up for electrical propulsion (even based on research data). Better by using industrial or military equipment applicable to marine use. Why industrial and military? Because they have "real life" data. I checked nickel-iron batteries. One company gives 7 years warranty and talking about 40 years usable life, another company (which use it to power mining equipment) gives 2 years warranty OR at least 1000 cycles. Which one to believe? Advertising or real data? I know, most will work with what they could get... At least people will know what to look for. I have some numbers for diesel engine (may be useful to compare with another system): Isuzu 27.5 HP - 3CB1-CZP03 (displacement 1.1L - 25 HP per liter) According to the chart, best fuel economy is ~ 0.382 Lb/HP-HR @ 2,000 RPM. This engine delivers about 18 HP @ 2,000 RPM. So, Fuel consumption @ 2,000 RPM would be 18*0.382=6.876Lb -> 1/7.15*6.876=0.96 Gal/HR Fuel consumption at MAX torque (2,300 RPM, 21.5 HP ) is 0.389 - 21.5*0.389=8.364Lb -> 1/7.15*8.364=1.17 Gal/HR Fuel consumption at MAX HP (3,200 RPM, 27.5 HP ) is 0.413 - 27.5*0.413=11.358Lb -> 1/7.15*11.358=1.59 Gal/HR As I understand, it is better to run this engine in the range 2,000-2,300 RPM. Which is 62.5-72% of max RPM, and 65-78% of max power. It will have best torque and fuel economy. It would be nice to have some numbers for electrical propulsion system from people who did research on it. P.S. No need to go into "defense" mode talking about "your" system. I do understand limitation of diesel engine as well ;)) It would be nice to have unbiased discussion for a change (just pro/cons/application). P.S.S Matt, thanks for reminding me about danger of DC, I knew about it before, but forgot.| 26120|26013|2011-06-30 04:40:11|j|Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|I am definitely going electric in my next boat, but then, as I have mentioned, I do not "cruise" on power and so will not miss the big advantage of diesels, which is long range cruising. Other posts here are correct in my experience. The electric motor struggled as speed and resistance increased. At 3 knots 20 amps but at 5 knots 100 amps ... so it made no sense to cruise at high speed for long periods. The thrust was useful when mooring or berthing, quicker than the diesel when you don't quite time entry into the berth correctly ... and it won't stall when you suddenly throw it into reverse as you realize you're going to hit the pier. My next boat will hopefully be about 4 tons lighter (I'm looking at making BS36 Aluminium) and a lower drag hull. By the way, I found the "regenerative" properties less than impressive. I borrowed a fixed blade prop and tried it on the boat for about a month. Only on really long runs off the wind at around 6 knots did it generate much electricity, and under those conditions the wind generated would have made as much or more ... so not worth the extra drag of a fixed prop when sailing. Electric motors are true auxiliaries ... an aid to sailing rather than a replacement for it. They'll help you get off a lee shore easily and reliably, back to port if the wind dies 20 miles from home, help slow down surfing down a large swell, prevent being caught in irons when tacking, great for docking, mooring and anchoring ... but not for cruising under power. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > J or anyone else, > > So with your experience, how would you power your next boat? More > storage (batteries), more power from the motor, more energy regeneration > or exactly the same? I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using > 20amps. I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the > 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? What brand > or specs did the electric motor have? > > I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric > hp against displacement. > > Thanks! > > Barney > > PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for > peace of mind. > > On 6/27/2011 3:09 AM, j wrote: > > > > Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... > > from what I have read there have been no posts from people with > > personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless > > steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in > > 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... > > then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with > > 10hp electric motor. > > Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > > I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a > > sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most > > places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing > > stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it > > very nearly cost me the boat ... > > My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries > > (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so > > altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The > > motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall > > lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went > > below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was > > what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over > > the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric > > 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps > > so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator > > plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > > I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the > > diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed > > something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it > > goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge > > swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while > > tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power > > saved hours ... > > > > I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not > > practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really > > want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so > > little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are > > almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > > > cheers, JHL > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, > > when > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26121|26013|2011-06-30 07:57:18|Matt Malone|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Re: Transmission losses... What I said before about torque-power curves, applies to a fixed ratio transmission. Clearly if one has multiple forward speeds, or a CVT, then the useful speed range of either electric or diesel can be extended. Diesel would benefit by having a really low gear, and a big prop, or Electric would benefit by having a smaller prop and a higher gear -- relative to the previous fixed gear and prop size to best suit it. Now, it seems self-evident that power is lost in a transmission. I had occasion to be looking at a really odd transmission, one that was being used to drive a flapping wing aircraft, and I said to the designer on the day he delivered it for installation, what about energy losses in the transmission. He is a mechanical engineer, and a good one. He looked at me like I was stupid and said, there are no energy losses in a geared transmission, unless something is banging. I think what he meant was, there are no certain losses of power in a transmission, no theoretical limit for efficiency by definition, like less than 80% efficient, like there are theoretical limits for heat engines and propellers (the Carnot limit and Betz limit respectively). If one has a geared transmission, (clunk-forward-clunk-neutral-clunk-reverse) and one finds their old transmission is particularly sluggish, it might be time to change the fluid, flush it out, and put in a better fluid. One might greatly reduce transmission losses. If one has some other type of hydrostatic or continuously varying transmission, like mine, then, different story. Changing the fluid or making sure it is topped up might help. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:04:41 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) I agree with Matt about analyzing boat's power propulsion system without braking it into the parts. What a point to talk about how much power lost in the transmission/wires/etc. if propeller do not match your drive system and you loose 50% of the power delivered to the prop shaft just because of it? So, you need to combine/match drive system (any type) AND propeller. Then we can estimate efficiency of such system. Shaft RPMs will make big difference. So, we can take some "universal" propeller suitable for the 36-40ft boat as a start. I would like to see WHOLE set up for electrical propulsion (even based on research data). Better by using industrial or military equipment applicable to marine use. Why industrial and military? Because they have "real life" data. I checked nickel-iron batteries. One company gives 7 years warranty and talking about 40 years usable life, another company (which use it to power mining equipment) gives 2 years warranty OR at least 1000 cycles. Which one to believe? Advertising or real data? I know, most will work with what they could get... At least people will know what to look for. I have some numbers for diesel engine (may be useful to compare with another system): Isuzu 27.5 HP - 3CB1-CZP03 (displacement 1.1L - 25 HP per liter) According to the chart, best fuel economy is ~ 0.382 Lb/HP-HR @ 2,000 RPM. This engine delivers about 18 HP @ 2,000 RPM. So, Fuel consumption @ 2,000 RPM would be 18*0.382=6.876Lb -> 1/7.15*6.876=0.96 Gal/HR Fuel consumption at MAX torque (2,300 RPM, 21.5 HP ) is 0.389 - 21.5*0.389=8.364Lb -> 1/7.15*8.364=1.17 Gal/HR Fuel consumption at MAX HP (3,200 RPM, 27.5 HP ) is 0.413 - 27.5*0.413=11.358Lb -> 1/7.15*11.358=1.59 Gal/HR As I understand, it is better to run this engine in the range 2,000-2,300 RPM. Which is 62.5-72% of max RPM, and 65-78% of max power. It will have best torque and fuel economy. It would be nice to have some numbers for electrical propulsion system from people who did research on it. P.S. No need to go into "defense" mode talking about "your" system. I do understand limitation of diesel engine as well ;)) It would be nice to have unbiased discussion for a change (just pro/cons/application). P.S.S Matt, thanks for reminding me about danger of DC, I knew about it before, but forgot.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26122|26013|2011-06-30 08:06:47|Matt Malone|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Re: Maybe different propellers ? The second graphic gives an idea, for wind turbines, how different designs have different operating areas. It is hard to believe that a standard marine prop is the best choice of such a different engine as electric. "Best" is a big word though: not prone to gather weeds etc is part of it, so, the freedom to make really wacky propellers is limited, but still, variations is shape are still possible. http://windturbine1.com/?p=392 Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jhlean@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:39:58 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) I am definitely going electric in my next boat, but then, as I have mentioned, I do not "cruise" on power and so will not miss the big advantage of diesels, which is long range cruising. Other posts here are correct in my experience. The electric motor struggled as speed and resistance increased. At 3 knots 20 amps but at 5 knots 100 amps ... so it made no sense to cruise at high speed for long periods. The thrust was useful when mooring or berthing, quicker than the diesel when you don't quite time entry into the berth correctly ... and it won't stall when you suddenly throw it into reverse as you realize you're going to hit the pier. My next boat will hopefully be about 4 tons lighter (I'm looking at making BS36 Aluminium) and a lower drag hull. By the way, I found the "regenerative" properties less than impressive. I borrowed a fixed blade prop and tried it on the boat for about a month. Only on really long runs off the wind at around 6 knots did it generate much electricity, and under those conditions the wind generated would have made as much or more ... so not worth the extra drag of a fixed prop when sailing. Electric motors are true auxiliaries ... an aid to sailing rather than a replacement for it. They'll help you get off a lee shore easily and reliably, back to port if the wind dies 20 miles from home, help slow down surfing down a large swell, prevent being caught in irons when tacking, great for docking, mooring and anchoring ... but not for cruising under power. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > J or anyone else, > > So with your experience, how would you power your next boat? More > storage (batteries), more power from the motor, more energy regeneration > or exactly the same? I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using > 20amps. I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the > 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? What brand > or specs did the electric motor have? > > I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric > hp against displacement. > > Thanks! > > Barney > > PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for > peace of mind. > > On 6/27/2011 3:09 AM, j wrote: > > > > Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... > > from what I have read there have been no posts from people with > > personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless > > steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in > > 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... > > then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with > > 10hp electric motor. > > Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > > I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a > > sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most > > places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing > > stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it > > very nearly cost me the boat ... > > My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries > > (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so > > altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The > > motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall > > lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went > > below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was > > what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over > > the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric > > 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps > > so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator > > plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > > I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the > > diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed > > something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it > > goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge > > swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while > > tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power > > saved hours ... > > > > I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not > > practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really > > want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so > > little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are > > almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > > > cheers, JHL > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, > > when > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26123|26013|2011-06-30 08:55:17|Norm Moore|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|That was a nice summary of electric propulsion's strengths and limitations. Norm Moore ________________________________ From: j To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, June 30, 2011 1:39:58 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) I am definitely going electric in my next boat, but then, as I have mentioned, I do not "cruise" on power and so will not miss the big advantage of diesels, which is long range cruising. Other posts here are correct in my experience. The electric motor struggled as speed and resistance increased. At 3 knots 20 amps but at 5 knots 100 amps ... so it made no sense to cruise at high speed for long periods. The thrust was useful when mooring or berthing, quicker than the diesel when you don't quite time entry into the berth correctly ... and it won't stall when you suddenly throw it into reverse as you realize you're going to hit the pier. My next boat will hopefully be about 4 tons lighter (I'm looking at making BS36 Aluminium) and a lower drag hull. By the way, I found the "regenerative" properties less than impressive. I borrowed a fixed blade prop and tried it on the boat for about a month. Only on really long runs off the wind at around 6 knots did it generate much electricity, and under those conditions the wind generated would have made as much or more ... so not worth the extra drag of a fixed prop when sailing. Electric motors are true auxiliaries ... an aid to sailing rather than a replacement for it. They'll help you get off a lee shore easily and reliably, back to port if the wind dies 20 miles from home, help slow down surfing down a large swell, prevent being caught in irons when tacking, great for docking, mooring and anchoring ... but not for cruising under power. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > J or anyone else, > > So with your experience, how would you power your next boat? More > storage (batteries), more power from the motor, more energy regeneration > or exactly the same? I'm liking the idea of pushing 12 tons using > 20amps. I'm also surprised that the acceleration was better than the > 45hp Yanmar. Was the top speed difference a function of rpms? What brand > or specs did the electric motor have? > > I'm trying to determine some kind of baselines for amp hours, electric > hp against displacement. > > Thanks! > > Barney > > PS Hell, you could carry a backup engine in a locker. Imagine that for > peace of mind. > > On 6/27/2011 3:09 AM, j wrote: > > > > Have been half following the discussions around electric motors ... > > from what I have read there have been no posts from people with > > personal experience of electric motors. I built my boat (frameless > > steel, 36' long keel dble ender, 12 tons) in 1999 and launched in > > 2000. First 3 years I sailed without any motor (not enough cash) ... > > then 3 years with Yanmar 45hp diesel ... then finally, 3 years with > > 10hp electric motor. > > Order of preference? 1. Electric, 2. No motor and very distant 3. Diesel. > > I know different folks have different requirements, but I built a > > sailing boat and not a motor boat, so intended and did sail most > > places. Once I had installed the diesel engine, I found myself doing > > stuff that I would never have done if I had no motor, and twice it > > very nearly cost me the boat ... > > My electric motor was 48volt, I used 4 second hand telecom batteries > > (approx 400 amp hours each, gel cell) which each weighed 80 kilos, so > > altogether still weight less than the diesel I used to lug around. The > > motor went from the 240kg Yanmar to a 20kg electric, so overall > > lighter. I never once plugged into shore power and never once went > > below 50% charge. Drove a 18" feathering prop (Kiwi Prop) which was > > what I had with the Yanmar. Better acceleration with the electric over > > the Yanmar, but lower top speed. (Yanmar got 6.3 knots, Electric > > 5.5knots). Could cruise on 3 knots in flat calm drawing only 20 amps > > so had a range of about 30 miles. Charged using 48volt wind generator > > plus 2 120 watt solar panels. > > I found the electric motor far more useful for a sailing boat than the > > diesel. First of all it is always "on" and so if you suddenly needed > > something other than sail power, then you just hit the throttle and it > > goes. Even used it once to slow my boat down while surfing down huge > > swells off southern NZ. Also used it to get my boat to go about while > > tacking up long narrow harbours ... just a few seconds spurt of power > > saved hours ... > > > > I guess if you really do motor long distance, then electric is not > > practicable ... but they are infinitely more reliable when you really > > want them (like being driven onto a rocky lee shore) ... take up so > > little space you wonder what to do with what you've gained ... and are > > almost silent, and don't stink ... and > > > > cheers, JHL > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:21:54AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > > > If one is barely going to use their mechanical propulsion then the > > > > energy lost in doing it just about any way you want is minimal. But > > > > then the initial cost per unit use is very high. > > > > > > Depends on your usage model. If you use your mechanical propulsion at a > > > low level most of the time, with short runs of WOT, or close to it, > > when > > > that's required, then electric is a good approach. If you want to run at > > > WOT for hours straight, then it's not. > > > > > > > Why not use something cheaper. > > > > > > Funny thing - just as I got your email, I was watching an interesting > > > video about the Torqueedo electric outboard, with one of the owners of > > > the company explaining how it works. He starts it by saying that > > > electrical storage is a lot less energy dense than gasoline; e.g., the > > > Torqueedo battery is the equivalent of 35 grams of gasoline. BUT the > > > Torqueedo will push a boat for up to 16 miles on that. I don't know of > > > any gas engine that will do that - and yet have enough power to push it > > > up to 4kt as well. $1600 for this years model, which compares quite well > > > against gas outboards - and, again, the fuel is essentially free (can be > > > charged from 110VAC, 12VDC, or a foldable solar panel that they sell > > > you.) Oh yeah - comes with a built-in digital panel, a GPS, is > > > waterproof, and weighs under 35 lbs. > > > > > > (Oops. I think I just talked myself into one, darn it. :) > > > > > > > Would you mind providing a link for pulse width modulating load > > > > matching controller that inputs DC and outputs AC > > > > > > Whoa - I didn't say that. I was explicit about it being a hybrid - and > > > in that mode, it is an AC generator powering an AC motor; thus, minimal > > > conversion losses. Now, would you like for me to provide a link to an > > > efficient steady-speed diesel generator or a high-efficiency motor? > > > That, I can do. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26124|26013|2011-06-30 09:54:48|Ben Okopnik|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 06:04:41AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I agree with Matt about analyzing boat's power propulsion system > without braking it into the parts. What a point to talk about how much > power lost in the transmission/wires/etc. if propeller do not match > your drive system and you loose 50% of the power delivered to the prop > shaft just because of it? The reason props haven't come up - at least the reason I haven't mentioned them - is that we've been talking about the differences in diesel vs. electric, not about things that can be used to improve both. I agree that a discussion of the latter would be a good thing, though. This _has_ been a very polarized sort of discussion, with people setting themselves up as champion of this or defender of that (not what I was trying to do, but seems to have affected some folks as if I was.) I'd even say that me not being shy about expressing my opinions in strong terms contributes to that dynamic. [shrug] I don't mind much, although I'd prefer a more cooperative discussion; as Brent noted, without passion, things aren't likely to change. I _am_ somewhat annoyed that Matt decided to jump the shark by resorting to insults - I respect his technical knowledge and much of his approach to problem solving - but that's life, and my fragile emotions will survive somehow. :) With regard to props - sure, that gets addressed as soon as you start seriously exploring a conversion. If you go to one of the vendors of EV systems these days and ask them to work up a system for you, one of their very first questions is "how big of a prop can you accomodate?" I've actually been more-or-less seriously digging into all the info, numbers, dollars, etc., getting system estimates, checking out installed systems, and so on - so for me, this isn't just idle chatter, and that's why I happen to have all of this stuff at hand. But discussions of how batteries are *so* dangerous from people who use an explosive for their propulsion are totally out of place, and are more of a religious war than a rational discussion, and waste everyone's time. (Thought experiment: you're looking at two boats. One has a diesel engine and a hundred gallons of fuel _and_ a battery system on board; the other one has _no_ diesel, no fuel, and a larger (say, 4 times larger) battery bank. Which one is more of a fire risk?) In addition, I don't know all that much about props beyond the basics (given a torque/RPM range, you can calculate a diameter/pitch that will couple the force to the water as efficiently as possible), so I don't really feel competent to discuss it - but I do know that the EV folks are quite keen on improving performance via prop choices. 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| 26125|26013|2011-06-30 09:58:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:39:58AM -0000, j wrote: > > By the way, I found the "regenerative" properties less than > impressive. I think that's pretty much the take in the EV community these days. Regen is a sales point, not something that's realistically usable. > Electric motors are true auxiliaries ... an aid to sailing rather than > a replacement for it. They'll help you get off a lee shore easily and > reliably, back to port if the wind dies 20 miles from home, help slow > down surfing down a large swell, prevent being caught in irons when > tacking, great for docking, mooring and anchoring ... but not for > cruising under power. An excellent statement of the situation, I'd say. 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| 26126|26013|2011-06-30 11:33:10|wild_explorer|Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|J, as I understand, you were using the same prop for diesel and electric motor. This could make a good example to compare diesel and electric set-up. Do you have information/full specs for both set-ups which were used? Prop: number_of_blades/diameter/pitch Diesel: Engine_Model/specs/curves, gearbox_ratio/specs Electric: Model/specs/curves May be you have better info on your propeller? I found only this so far http://www.kiwiprops.co.nz/power_curves.php| 26127|26127|2011-06-30 12:16:51|Ben Okopnik|EV boats - numbers|Reposted from the electricboats group - this _just_ came in, and I thought that it would answer a question that had been asked here earlier about real-world data. Even if you assume that this was done in completely flat water, those are still nicely impressive numbers for a storage bank of that size. ----- Forwarded message from m8trixman ----- Brett Peterson - Cal-29 with 8 group 31 AGM 12 volt batteries, 48 volt 200 AMP system with the Electric Yacht 100 motor Amps Knots Range RPMs Volts Hours 6 2.2 83.6 730 51 38 10 2.9 55.1 1020 51 19 18 3.7 38.85 1250 50 10.5 20 3.9 32.76 1280 50 8.4 25 4.2 28.98 1380 50 6.9 30 4.8 26.88 1480 50 5.6 35 5 25 1580 50 5 40 5.1 21.93 1610 50 4.3 45 5.2 19.76 1700 50 3.8 87 6.2 11.16 2150 49 1.8 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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| 26128|26013|2011-06-30 12:33:47|Matt Malone|Re: Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Regeneration in electric vehicles is one thing. If it is not working out, either they are doing a lot of flat-land driving or driving in a narrow speed range, like nearly stopped in a traffic jam. If one is going zero to 60 or 80K and back to zero a lot, like on a secondary highway with traffic lights, or a commuter bus, then your battery life will be noticeable extended with regeneration, if it is done correctly. Regeneration in a boat has a couple of completely different problems. First, if a prop is not symmetric, then it is typically optimized for forward motion, assuming one never really wants to go as fast in reverse as forward. Think about the blade in cross-section. To work well, it is a foil shape of some sort: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml Note how the foil is chambered positively in the direction one would like to produce lift -- in the case of a drive prop, lift is in the thrust direction. Note that the leading edge of the foil is nicely rounded, and the trailing edge is sharp. Completely assymmetric. When one is going forward, then the prop is spinning in the forward direction, and the face of the propeller facing the bow is the positive chamber airfoil that is creating suction to move you forward and the leading edge is the leading edge to flow. In reverse, the prop is spinning in reverse, the face of the prop facing the stern of the boat is the positive chamber airfoil that is trying to create suction to move you back, and the trailing edge of the prop foil is now the leading edge to the flow. Problem is, if one is not altering the chamber of the airfoil, it cannot be chambered both to the bow and the stern. It cannot have both a rounded leading edge and a sharp trailing edge on both edges. One must compromise. In regeneration, the prop is spinning forward, the leading edge is the leading edge to flow, but the side of the prop facing the stern is the positive chamber side creating suction to pull the prop around and get power out of the flow. This is not the same as either driving forward or in reverse. All one would have to do is try to regenerate electricity while moving in reverse motion, and then one would have tried to use that one airfoil shape all 4 different ways, and expected it to do a good job in all 4 uses. So one can design a prop completely symmetric, and do a poor job in all 4 uses, or optimize it for one. Since it is a drive prop first, then one can expect that its regenerative use is really poor. Even if one could reconfigure the propeller, one has the upper limit of the Betz efficiency to deal with, 59%, and one is using it twice, first to get power out of the water, into the shaft and then later out of the shaft into the water. 59%*59% = 35%, and that is assuming one had some sort of ideal prop that was optimally efficient at both forward motion and regeneration. I think this: http://windturbine1.com/?p=392 Makes it pretty clear that props may not even be very good at doing one thing, from an efficiency point of view. To expect it to do two things, one might expect the end to end efficiency to be less than 10%, even a couple percent might not be unexpected. That is also before considering any losses in turning shaft work into electricity and storing it and back again to thrust. Second problem is, a prop is a pretty small area to try to get power from. When one is applying power to a prop, the limit is the cavitation limit. So long as one is not cavitating, one can generally get something out of putting a little more power to the prop. In regeneration, it is completely backwards, the pressures are always lower, because they are driven by flow speed, not rotation speed determined by a motor. Therefore, the more torque the motor blasts into a small prop, the more difference one would expect between thrusting and regeneration. So, this explains why people on boats find regeneration useless, and instead have a dedicated wind turbines to generate electricity. The prop can be small, and specialized for one task, driving forward, and OK at a second task, reversing. The wind turbine can have the long slender blades with the camber in the opposite sense, and be really good at getting power out of the air. Most wind turbines mounted on boats are of a moderate size to power electronics, but, provided it was featherable or removable or otherwise easy to deal with in excessive wind, a much larger turbine would be of considerable influence in regenerating the power for the propulsion. For cars, it is completely different. On asphalt, tires get near 100% grip on the road whether the engine is pushing the car forward, or the forward motion of the car is being used to drive the rotation of the wheels. With a good efficiency motor and circuitry to get the power out of it as a generator, in a way that provides the commanded braking effect, there is no excuse for not making regeneration work. I expect garage engineering is the weakness there. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:58:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors) On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:39:58AM -0000, j wrote: > > By the way, I found the "regenerative" properties less than > impressive. I think that's pretty much the take in the EV community these days. Regen is a sales point, not something that's realistically usable. > Electric motors are true auxiliaries ... an aid to sailing rather than > a replacement for it. They'll help you get off a lee shore easily and > reliably, back to port if the wind dies 20 miles from home, help slow > down surfing down a large swell, prevent being caught in irons when > tacking, great for docking, mooring and anchoring ... but not for > cruising under power. An excellent statement of the situation, I'd say. 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] | 26129|26127|2011-06-30 13:24:04|Matt Malone|Re: EV boats - numbers|Choosing just two points from that data: 51 Volts 6 Amps, 2.2 knots 83.6 nautical mine range 38 hours Sounds like a good recipe for taking some of the drift out of a bow-chute strategy for weathering a storm if one were short on drift-room to the next shore. Alternately, one could hop from one marina to another, motoring in and out of the slips for days and not use up the batteries. Next lets look at: 49 Volts 87 Amps 6.2 knots 11.16 nautical mile range 1.8 hours That is only 49 V * 87 Amps / 760 Watts per hp = 5.6 hp ? That is pretty small. A hp is a hp, but, if one wants to say this is the same as a 10 "hp" fuel motor, I have to ask myself if one thinks this is a good idea for a 29 ft boat. I know people have talked about undertaking a long trip with little in the way of an engine, but this seems too little. I would want a 10hp on a 29 footer even if I were only going into a medium-sized lake. I would want more juice just to go into a Great Lake, or coastal sailing. Just because one cannot efficiently drive a boat above hull speed does not mean the extra available power is a waste of cast iron. Remember that the motor might be asked to drive the boat at hull speed into a head wind when both wind and current oppose you. There is a place for having reserve power that cannot be efficiently used in flat water, and no wind. In a good head wind, one might be putting 7-8 hp into moving the boat through the water, and another 10 hp moving the boat through the air. This is why boats have 30 and 40 "hp" diesel engines, even if that is really only a little more than 20 and 30 hp making it to the prop. If this is a lee shore, this boat may be pinned, the wind using all 5.6 of its hp, and having none left over for forward motion. Also, I am not sure I buy the degree of discounting being used here for hp ratings on fuel engines. It seems to imply a lot of exaggeration in motor specs. Sure, cars are a different story. My 20hp and 25hp non-car motors look comparable to the 60 and 80 "hp" motors I have had in some cars. For cars, the power to the wheels is a lot less than the brochure says. I would not think boat engines would be like that, there would be a lot more truth in hp, like there is for heavy equipment, generators, tractors, etc. I am thinking that people are impressed by acceleration from a dead stop, and electric motors feel like a lot bigger motor in this aspect, and in comparison fuel engines do not seem to live up to an electric motor's sharp surge at the start, comparing Watts to Watts. It reminds me of my buick. From a dead stop, some of these little cars could accelerate nicely and appear comparable, but above 50-60mph their acceleration really dropped off. The buick (455) could go from 60 to 80 mph, almost as fast as it went from 30 to 50 mph -- or at least it seemed that way. Point is, one notices real hp differences at the top end, and I am not sure all the discounting being applied to fuel engines is completely fair. At least some of it might be perception from the bottom-end performance of electrics. There is no doubt, the bottom end performance of electric is impressive. 38 hours at 2.2 knots.. A week of easy docking, and no recharging. Wow. It would not take much of a wind turbine to keep that up for a long time. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:16:08 -0600 Subject: [origamiboats] EV boats - numbers Reposted from the electricboats group - this _just_ came in, and I thought that it would answer a question that had been asked here earlier about real-world data. Even if you assume that this was done in completely flat water, those are still nicely impressive numbers for a storage bank of that size. ----- Forwarded message from m8trixman ----- Brett Peterson - Cal-29 with 8 group 31 AGM 12 volt batteries, 48 volt 200 AMP system with the Electric Yacht 100 motor Amps Knots Range RPMs Volts Hours 6 2.2 83.6 730 51 38 10 2.9 55.1 1020 51 19 18 3.7 38.85 1250 50 10.5 20 3.9 32.76 1280 50 8.4 25 4.2 28.98 1380 50 6.9 30 4.8 26.88 1480 50 5.6 35 5 25 1580 50 5 40 5.1 21.93 1610 50 4.3 45 5.2 19.76 1700 50 3.8 87 6.2 11.16 2150 49 1.8 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]| 26130|26049|2011-06-30 13:35:41|Mark Hamill|Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats.|I am pretty flexible at the moment so just let me know when you are coming. 2608 Willemar Ave. Courtenay, BC, 250-702-7457. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: badpirate36 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:52 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Look'in to tour some origami boats. >Tom What part of the world are you in? I'm building a BS40 but it is >foamed and interior is partially in. Gord Yeah, I probably should have mentioned my location. I'm in Vancouver, BC, Gord. Is your boat on the left coast too? >If you are coming to courtenay bc you can look at the one i just >bought--interior about 45% finished by the old owner. MarkH That would be great Mark. Pick a day, weekends work best for me. and Congradulation on your new boat! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Starting from Victoria, Ocean Boy is in Esquimalt harbour. > Babara Allen, Panache, and another 36 are in Maple Bay and Genoa Bay, Dove 4 is in Ladysmith Maritime Society's docks, ditto Seramin, and Puna in Newcastle marina in Nananimo, and Viski, behind the Muddy waters pub, and another 36 at the Nanaimo Yacht club dock. My Island may be at the Gibsons govt dock in Gibsons. > Dove 2 may still be in Deep Bay marina south of the govt dock in Deep Bay. Moon Raven and another 36 may still be at the govt dock in Comox and Lungta, another 36, anchored west of the condos in Comox. That is if they haven't left for the summer. > Another 36 is under contruction ( overdue for launching) on 2nd avenue in Courtenay, and another on 26th and Willemar. > Another 36, is in Sheerwater BC. A 26 is under construction in Queen Charlotte City. Several boats, 36 and 26, are under construction in Alaska. > Thanx for all the leads Brent. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > I'm fitting out my BS36(aluminium). I am ready(almost) to start the foaming process. Although I have gotten many ideas from the many photo's on this site and others for the interior. It's time to step on-board a finished origami or better yet one just a little further on than mine, and try to tie all this together /.o) So, if anybody has a little time over the summer and would like to show off their boat, I'll be on time and won't stay long. > > Thanx > > Tom Casault > > badpirate@ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26131|26131|2011-06-30 14:15:29|wild_explorer|Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|Below is information about SHIPS which use generators, not batteries. (for a sailboat it could be different). Electric propulsion motors use high voltage AC (I suspect with frequency around 400 Hz). Did anybody tried to use AC motor for EV boat? It could be more safe and effective with not-so-high voltage & frequency 200-700 Hz. Quote: Traditionally, it has been observed that replacing the reduction gear of a mechanical drive ship with a generator, switchgear, frequency changer, and motor will increase weight, volume, acquisition cost, and because of reduced efficiency, will increase operating costs. While this observation is true, it is misleading because a one-for-one replacement of mechanical drive components with electric drive components does not take advantage of the flexibility of electric drive that can result in improved affordability. A more balanced view would note that in the energy conversion process from the chemical energy of the fuel to the kinetic energy of the ship, the energy loss in the transmission system is very small. The dominating loss mechanisms are in the conversion of fuel into rotating mechanical energy of the prime mover (as measured by Specific Fuel Consumption or SFC), in the conversion of rotating mechanical energy into thrust (as measured by the Propulsive Coefficient or PC) and in the conversion of thrust into kinetic energy of the ship (as measured by the EHP vs. speed curve). Reducing fuel consumption is not the only reason for implementing electric drive. An electric drive ship can be more cost effective for several other reasons as well. End of quote.| 26132|26131|2011-06-30 15:12:31|Matt Malone|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|One advantage of AC is, with multi-phase AC, one can directly control the speed of the motor. Since the torque required for a prop rises quickly with RPM, the motor and prop will find an agreeable speed quite quickly, without positive control of the speed of the motor. I do not think this would really help on a boat. Another advantage of AC is, high power, high voltage AC motors might be far easier to source and be far more available second hand and as re-furbs. This might benefit the project. A higher voltage AC motor would use lower currents, smaller gauge cabling, reduce resistive losses in wires, and would use wire sizes more economically purchased from industrial suppliers. This might benefit the project. The power must come from somewhere. Either there are batteries, and a DC to AC electric drive, a usually rare but findable industrial module, or there is a diesel and generator. One advantage of using an diesel and a generator is, one might carry power to the electric motor anywhere. One might have an engine pod, several thrusters, anything. On big ships I can see the advantage of that. Also, the diesel motor could be situated where it was convenient. The wires leading to the electric motor(s) could be sealed at the through-port to another section providing better segmentation than might be possible with a long propeller shaft running for some distance. It seems like a lot of gear and complication for a small boat. Locomotives also use diesel engines, generators, and electric motors. I believe it is to take advantage of the starting torque of the electric motor at zero RPM, but use the peak power output of the diesel motor at peak RPM. Essentially, the electric loop behaves like a variable speed transmission with an extraordinarily low first gear so everything can operate in its most efficient zone of operation. Since the impediments to movement of a boat are fluid, I do not think this would be a help on a boat. Over all, provided there are cheap and accessible DC motors surplus from somewhere, I am not sure why one would use AC, or a diesel-generator system. For all their complications, and possibly unfamiliar hazards, batteries and DC are fewer components and interface more readily with alternative energy systems. The controls can be as simple as a large FET transistor and either a little pulse generating circuit for variable speed drive, or a voltage comparator circuit for charge control. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:15:18 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application, Below is information about SHIPS which use generators, not batteries. (for a sailboat it could be different). Electric propulsion motors use high voltage AC (I suspect with frequency around 400 Hz). Did anybody tried to use AC motor for EV boat? It could be more safe and effective with not-so-high voltage & frequency 200-700 Hz. Quote: Traditionally, it has been observed that replacing the reduction gear of a mechanical drive ship with a generator, switchgear, frequency changer, and motor will increase weight, volume, acquisition cost, and because of reduced efficiency, will increase operating costs. While this observation is true, it is misleading because a one-for-one replacement of mechanical drive components with electric drive components does not take advantage of the flexibility of electric drive that can result in improved affordability. A more balanced view would note that in the energy conversion process from the chemical energy of the fuel to the kinetic energy of the ship, the energy loss in the transmission system is very small. The dominating loss mechanisms are in the conversion of fuel into rotating mechanical energy of the prime mover (as measured by Specific Fuel Consumption or SFC), in the conversion of rotating mechanical energy into thrust (as measured by the Propulsive Coefficient or PC) and in the conversion of thrust into kinetic energy of the ship (as measured by the EHP vs. speed curve). Reducing fuel consumption is not the only reason for implementing electric drive. An electric drive ship can be more cost effective for several other reasons as well. End of quote. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26133|26127|2011-06-30 17:38:29|Paul Wilson|Re: EV boats - numbers|This has been a very interesting discussion. Just a few comments to no one in particular..... I am very skeptical about the hp figures required for a boat. I once towed a 48 foot 25 ton ferro ketch with a 3 hp motor. In flat calm, I could get her close to 3 knots. This sounds good but if there was any wind against us, I may not have got her moving at all or maybe not had the hp to get the bow into the wind and only been able to go sideways. My point is the amount of hp required to move a boat into a chop with a 15 knot wind is much, much more than required than when it is calm. So much more that if I tried adding an extra 3 hp from an electric motor to the equation, I don't think I would see any increase in speed. As a further example, if I was trying to get away from a lee shore, I don't think the extra assist of an small, underpowered electric motor would do much for me at all. I know from personal experience with my full powered diesel, I need max hp and revs in order to really help out in these conditions or I am wasting my time and might as well shut the motor off. As I said in an earlier posting, when I really need a motor is going through a pass with adverse current or wind. If you need to turn into the wind to get through a pass that has a 3 knot current how do you do it without a strong engine? Go somewhere else? You will miss out on some great spots. In some coral atolls, the current, always flows out, and never reverses due to the inflow of water over the rest of the reef. I saw a boat sail back and forth for 3 days once, waiting for a favorable wind so they could get into an atoll. They finally gave up and missed out on a fantastic place. I also helped an engine-less boat who was being swept up onto a reef by the current when the wind died. The skipper later bragged how he sailed everywhere without an engine. If you didn't count the times he was towed or helped and didn't count the all good places he was scared to go into, then he was probably telling the truth. There are cases (more often than some let on, IMO) where you simply can't sail out of trouble and having a good engine adds a huge safety factor. Personally, I think if all I wanted to do was move my boat for an hour, in relative calm, say in and out of a marina, by far the most cost effective thing to do would be to just get a good used outboard motor. If you keep the fuel clean and keep it lubed up, they are quite reliable, and relatively cheap. Cheers, Paul| 26134|26131|2011-06-30 18:48:00|Paul Wilson|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|The last helicopters I worked on was the Sikorsky S92A which was pretty much all AC (dual 75 KVA , 3 phase, 115 V, 400 Hz and a 35 KVA backup Aux power unit) with 400 Amp DC converters. Even though the components were more powerful and smaller, they were much more reliable than the older helicopters which were designed as pretty much all DC 28 volt. The most unreliable thing about the older helicopters were their high current DC contactors and generator systems with their brushes. The few AC contactors they had were never a problem. I never had to change an AC generator with the new helicopter even though it put out an incredible amount of power in a package the size of a football. Fischer Panda does some fancy diesel electric systems using high voltage AC and then conversion to high voltage DC with a variety of water cooled motors. Very efficient but very expensive. I would think that a water cooled motor is very desirable in a boat. http://www.fischerpanda.de/products/eng/335 Paul On 7/1/2011 7:12 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > One advantage of AC is, with multi-phase AC, one can directly control > the speed of the motor. > Since the torque required for a prop rises quickly with RPM, the motor > and prop will find an > agreeable speed quite quickly, without positive control of the speed > of the motor. I do not think > this would really help on a boat. > > Another advantage of AC is, high power, high voltage AC motors might > be far easier to source > and be far more available second hand and as re-furbs. This might > benefit the project. > > A higher voltage AC motor would use lower currents, smaller gauge > cabling, reduce resistive > losses in wires, and would use wire sizes more economically purchased > from industrial suppliers. > This might benefit the project. > > The power must come from somewhere. Either there are batteries, and a > DC to AC electric > drive, a usually rare but findable industrial module, or there is a > diesel and generator. One > advantage of using an diesel and a generator is, one might carry power > to the electric motor > anywhere. One might have an engine pod, several thrusters, anything. > On big ships I can > see the advantage of that. Also, the diesel motor could be situated > where it was convenient. > The wires leading to the electric motor(s) could be sealed at the > through-port to another > section providing better segmentation than might be possible with a > long propeller shaft > running for some distance. It seems like a lot of gear and > complication for a small boat. > > Locomotives also use diesel engines, generators, and electric motors. > I believe it is to take > advantage of the starting torque of the electric motor at zero RPM, > but use the peak power > output of the diesel motor at peak RPM. Essentially, the electric loop > behaves like a variable > speed transmission with an extraordinarily low first gear so > everything can operate in its most > efficient zone of operation. Since the impediments to movement of a > boat are fluid, I do > not think this would be a help on a boat. > > Over all, provided there are cheap and accessible DC motors surplus > from somewhere, I am > not sure why one would use AC, or a diesel-generator system. For all > their complications, > and possibly unfamiliar hazards, batteries and DC are fewer components > and interface more > readily with alternative energy systems. The controls can be as simple > as a large FET > transistor and either a little pulse generating circuit for variable > speed drive, or a voltage > comparator circuit for charge control. > > Matt > > - > > | 26135|26127|2011-06-30 18:51:45|Jimbo|Re: EV boats - numbers|Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental skills (patience and planning and accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. Cheers, Jim. PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my snotter. Where is Alex these days? On 30/06/2011, at 5:39 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: This has been a very interesting discussion. Just a few comments to no one in particular..... I am very skeptical about the hp figures required for a boat. I once towed a 48 foot 25 ton ferro ketch with a 3 hp motor. In flat calm, I could get her close to 3 knots. This sounds good but if there was any wind against us, I may not have got her moving at all or maybe not had the hp to get the bow into the wind and only been able to go sideways. My point is the amount of hp required to move a boat into a chop with a 15 knot wind is much, much more than required than when it is calm. So much more that if I tried adding an extra 3 hp from an electric motor to the equation, I don't think I would see any increase in speed. As a further example, if I was trying to get away from a lee shore, I don't think the extra assist of an small, underpowered electric motor would do much for me at all. I know from personal experience with my full powered diesel, I need max hp and revs in order to really help out in these conditions or I am wasting my time and might as well shut the motor off. As I said in an earlier posting, when I really need a motor is going through a pass with adverse current or wind. If you need to turn into the wind to get through a pass that has a 3 knot current how do you do it without a strong engine? Go somewhere else? You will miss out on some great spots. In some coral atolls, the current, always flows out, and never reverses due to the inflow of water over the rest of the reef. I saw a boat sail back and forth for 3 days once, waiting for a favorable wind so they could get into an atoll. They finally gave up and missed out on a fantastic place. I also helped an engine-less boat who was being swept up onto a reef by the current when the wind died. The skipper later bragged how he sailed everywhere without an engine. If you didn't count the times he was towed or helped and didn't count the all good places he was scared to go into, then he was probably telling the truth. There are cases (more often than some let on, IMO) where you simply can't sail out of trouble and having a good engine adds a huge safety factor. Personally, I think if all I wanted to do was move my boat for an hour, in relative calm, say in and out of a marina, by far the most cost effective thing to do would be to just get a good used outboard motor. If you keep the fuel clean and keep it lubed up, they are quite reliable, and relatively cheap. Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26136|26131|2011-06-30 18:58:00|David Frantz|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|The simple answer to the AC motor question is this, do you need a large power plant for other things? A 10 to 30 kw commercial AC generator set is an expensive option but if you have a need for AC power to power other items on a ship then diesel electric propulsion might make sense. For most people in this forum I don't think their is a huge desire for a yacht like power system. A low voltage (24-48 volts) DC system can be a simple solution to leaving port which I believe attracts many people. Since inverters are readily available in the voltages your power storage system can do double duty for house power. Such systems are trade off some benefits for others and only work well if the owner is of a mind to leverage the positive trade off. Sent from my iPad On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > One advantage of AC is, with multi-phase AC, one can directly control the speed of the motor. > Since the torque required for a prop rises quickly with RPM, the motor and prop will find an > agreeable speed quite quickly, without positive control of the speed of the motor. I do not think > this would really help on a boat. > > Another advantage of AC is, high power, high voltage AC motors might be far easier to source > and be far more available second hand and as re-furbs. This might benefit the project. > > A higher voltage AC motor would use lower currents, smaller gauge cabling, reduce resistive > losses in wires, and would use wire sizes more economically purchased from industrial suppliers. > This might benefit the project. > > The power must come from somewhere. Either there are batteries, and a DC to AC electric > drive, a usually rare but findable industrial module, or there is a diesel and generator. One > advantage of using an diesel and a generator is, one might carry power to the electric motor > anywhere. One might have an engine pod, several thrusters, anything. On big ships I can > see the advantage of that. Also, the diesel motor could be situated where it was convenient. > The wires leading to the electric motor(s) could be sealed at the through-port to another > section providing better segmentation than might be possible with a long propeller shaft > running for some distance. It seems like a lot of gear and complication for a small boat. > > Locomotives also use diesel engines, generators, and electric motors. I believe it is to take > advantage of the starting torque of the electric motor at zero RPM, but use the peak power > output of the diesel motor at peak RPM. Essentially, the electric loop behaves like a variable > speed transmission with an extraordinarily low first gear so everything can operate in its most > efficient zone of operation. Since the impediments to movement of a boat are fluid, I do > not think this would be a help on a boat. > > Over all, provided there are cheap and accessible DC motors surplus from somewhere, I am > not sure why one would use AC, or a diesel-generator system. For all their complications, > and possibly unfamiliar hazards, batteries and DC are fewer components and interface more > readily with alternative energy systems. The controls can be as simple as a large FET > transistor and either a little pulse generating circuit for variable speed drive, or a voltage > comparator circuit for charge control. > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:15:18 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Below is information about SHIPS which use generators, not batteries. (for a sailboat it could be different). Electric propulsion motors use high voltage AC (I suspect with frequency around 400 Hz). > > > > Did anybody tried to use AC motor for EV boat? It could be more safe and effective with not-so-high voltage & frequency 200-700 Hz. > > > > Quote: > > > > Traditionally, it has been > > observed that replacing the reduction gear of a mechanical > > drive ship with a generator, switchgear, frequency changer, > > and motor will increase weight, volume, acquisition cost, > > and because of reduced efficiency, will increase > > operating costs. While this observation is true, it is > > misleading because a one-for-one replacement of mechanical drive > > components with electric drive components does not > > take advantage of the flexibility of electric drive that > > can result in improved affordability. A more balanced > > view would note that in the energy conversion process > > from the chemical energy of the fuel to the kinetic > > energy of the ship, the energy loss in the transmission > > system is very small. The dominating loss mechanisms > > are in the conversion of fuel into rotating mechanical > > energy of the prime mover (as measured by Specific Fuel > > Consumption or SFC), in the conversion of rotating > > mechanical energy into thrust (as measured by the > > Propulsive Coefficient or PC) and in the conversion > > of thrust into kinetic energy of the ship (as measured by > > the EHP vs. speed curve). > > > > Reducing fuel consumption is not the only reason for > > implementing electric drive. An electric drive ship can > > be more cost effective for several other reasons as well. > > > > End of quote. > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > | 26137|26127|2011-06-30 19:01:05|Jimbo|Re: EV boats - numbers|Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental skills (patience and planning and accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. Cheers, Jim. PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my snotter. Where is Alex these days? On 30/06/2011, at 5:39 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > This has been a very interesting discussion. > > Just a few comments to no one in particular..... > > I am very skeptical about the hp figures required for a boat. I once > towed a 48 foot 25 ton ferro ketch with a 3 hp motor. In flat calm, I > could get her close to 3 knots. This sounds good but if there was any > wind against us, I may not have got her moving at all or maybe not had > the hp to get the bow into the wind and only been able to go sideways. > My point is the amount of hp required to move a boat into a chop with a > 15 knot wind is much, much more than required than when it is calm. So > much more that if I tried adding an extra 3 hp from an electric motor to > the equation, I don't think I would see any increase in speed. As a > further example, if I was trying to get away from a lee shore, I don't > think the extra assist of an small, underpowered electric motor would do > much for me at all. I know from personal experience with my full > powered diesel, I need max hp and revs in order to really help out in > these conditions or I am wasting my time and might as well shut the > motor off. > > As I said in an earlier posting, when I really need a motor is going > through a pass with adverse current or wind. If you need to turn into > the wind to get through a pass that has a 3 knot current how do you do > it without a strong engine? Go somewhere else? You will miss out on > some great spots. In some coral atolls, the current, always flows out, > and never reverses due to the inflow of water over the rest of the reef. > I saw a boat sail back and forth for 3 days once, waiting for a > favorable wind so they could get into an atoll. They finally gave up > and missed out on a fantastic place. > > I also helped an engine-less boat who was being swept up onto a reef by > the current when the wind died. The skipper later bragged how he > sailed everywhere without an engine. If you didn't count the times he > was towed or helped and didn't count the all good places he was scared > to go into, then he was probably telling the truth. There are cases > (more often than some let on, IMO) where you simply can't sail out of > trouble and having a good engine adds a huge safety factor. > > Personally, I think if all I wanted to do was move my boat for an hour, > in relative calm, say in and out of a marina, by far the most cost > effective thing to do would be to just get a good used outboard motor. > If you keep the fuel clean and keep it lubed up, they are quite > reliable, and relatively cheap. > > Cheers, Paul > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26138|26127|2011-06-30 19:10:24|Jimbo|Re: EV boats - numbers|Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental skills (patience and planning and accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. Cheers, Jim. PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my snotter. Where is Alex these days? On 30/06/2011, at 5:39 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > This has been a very interesting discussion. > > Just a few comments to no one in particular..... > > I am very skeptical about the hp figures required for a boat. I once > towed a 48 foot 25 ton ferro ketch with a 3 hp motor. In flat calm, I > could get her close to 3 knots. This sounds good but if there was any > wind against us, I may not have got her moving at all or maybe not had > the hp to get the bow into the wind and only been able to go sideways. > My point is the amount of hp required to move a boat into a chop with a > 15 knot wind is much, much more than required than when it is calm. So > much more that if I tried adding an extra 3 hp from an electric motor to > the equation, I don't think I would see any increase in speed. As a > further example, if I was trying to get away from a lee shore, I don't > think the extra assist of an small, underpowered electric motor would do > much for me at all. I know from personal experience with my full > powered diesel, I need max hp and revs in order to really help out in > these conditions or I am wasting my time and might as well shut the > motor off. > > As I said in an earlier posting, when I really need a motor is going > through a pass with adverse current or wind. If you need to turn into > the wind to get through a pass that has a 3 knot current how do you do > it without a strong engine? Go somewhere else? You will miss out on > some great spots. In some coral atolls, the current, always flows out, > and never reverses due to the inflow of water over the rest of the reef. > I saw a boat sail back and forth for 3 days once, waiting for a > favorable wind so they could get into an atoll. They finally gave up > and missed out on a fantastic place. > > I also helped an engine-less boat who was being swept up onto a reef by > the current when the wind died. The skipper later bragged how he > sailed everywhere without an engine. If you didn't count the times he > was towed or helped and didn't count the all good places he was scared > to go into, then he was probably telling the truth. There are cases > (more often than some let on, IMO) where you simply can't sail out of > trouble and having a good engine adds a huge safety factor. > > Personally, I think if all I wanted to do was move my boat for an hour, > in relative calm, say in and out of a marina, by far the most cost > effective thing to do would be to just get a good used outboard motor. > If you keep the fuel clean and keep it lubed up, they are quite > reliable, and relatively cheap. > > Cheers, Paul > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26139|26131|2011-06-30 20:05:26|wild_explorer|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|Some ideas could be borrowed from Fischer Panda... I was unable to find prices or more detailed information (just what in PDF files there). What is the price range? It is good idea to combine and match two systems. Looks similar what Ben's friend has, but higher level. Water-cooled electric motor would be nice on a metal boat. Make it possible to run on batteries only, but when you need more power you can start diesel generator. This will solve the problem "more power when needed" and extend usable range and not rely on batteries only. This way, if someone want to start just with batteries and see if it is enough for someone application - fine. If not, diesel generator available as part of the system. Just need to have more powerful electric motor from the beginning and generator (later). If it was cheap..... I see that golf cart DC motors are about 10hp max? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Fischer Panda does some fancy diesel electric systems using high voltage > AC and then conversion to high voltage DC with a variety of water cooled > motors. Very efficient but very expensive. I would think that a water > cooled motor is very desirable in a boat. > > http://www.fischerpanda.de/products/eng/335 > > Paul | 26140|26127|2011-06-30 23:49:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: EV boats - numbers|On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:51:44PM -0700, Jimbo wrote: > > PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude > of Ben is a little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good > info or ideas but the presentation and manner of discussing them with > others just really gets up my snotter. Puts me in mind of a slimebag who breaks into a house and steals a TV, and is then unspeakably outraged that it's not the latest, most expensive model. This clearly demonstrates the double problem with evolution: one, there's no lifeguard on the gene pool; two, being too stupid to figure out the purpose of a 'Delete' key is not a fatal mutation. Shame, that... 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| 26141|26013|2011-07-01 02:12:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Hi, Darren - On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:27:22PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: > > The problem I see, and I think the point > Matt was trying to make, is that batteries really > aren't much safer. Especially when you consider > that most folks understand the dangers of gas, > but if you were to take a poll as you walked the > docks at the marina I'm sure you'd find most > folks know a lot less about batteries (even lead > acid, let alone the more exotic types). I think you may be confusing familiarity and perhaps ubiquity with knowledge. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people on those docks wouldn't have the slightest idea of the correct approach to setting up a decent fuel system, or what the factors are (beyond "don't let it leak") that would make it safe. Have you ever seen them changing the diesel filters? More often than not, the person doing it ends up covered in fuel, with quite a bit of it spilled in the engine compartment. If it's wiped up at all, it's just a swish of the rag - not a thorough clean-up. Mostly, cruising boats older than 10 years or so are a mess of garage engineering, and fuel leaks are pretty much universal. I've done enough work on enough boats to know. And engines deteriorate; it's their nature. They're complex; they're full of different kinds of fluids, including some rather corrosive ones. Exhaust elbows rust through and leak salt water on them; fuel hoses crack and drip. I've been chasing after all that stuff and trying to maintain it for well over 20 years now, as a full-time liveaboard, and there's very little that anyone can tell me about this process that I don't already know. An electric motor, by comparison, contains no corrosive liquids, has no hoses that can rot, has no fuel that's constantly (driven by gravity) trying to escape. The dangers associated with a battery bank are ALREADY PRESENT in a diesel-based propulsion system; between the starter battery and the house bank, you already have 1/4 to 1/3rd of the batteries you'll need for an e-drive. In simple mathematical terms, if your risk of fire on a diesel boat is X + Y, where X is based on your electrical system and Y is based on your engine (where Y is dozens if not hundreds of times higher than X), then your risk with a battery system alone is perhaps 10% higher than X was - but Y is *gone*. I'd say that going purely electric would decrease your risk of fire by some 90 or 95%. I just cannot imagine in what way an electric system could be "not much safer" when it means eliminating dozens of gallons of fuel and possibly dozens of potential or existing fuel leaks. > So, you > have batteries being installed in boats, more > often than not with garage engineering and if > your not aware how dangerous they can be, then > you can have a big problem on your hands. But you're missing a key point here. Batteries normally _are_ installed with garage engineering - at least on diesel boats. People who have done their research about electric drives, spent a large amount of time deciding what type of batteries to use and choosing a motor, etc. are *far* less likely to do a sloppy job with their batteries; in fact, I have yet to see one single sloppy installation of an electric drive system. > Even lead acid vent hydrogen, which > usually isn't a problem with one battery, but > with an entire bank you have to start thinking > about venting. Also true on the average cruising boat with a diesel. As a general rule of thumb, you need to equalize your batteries at least once a month to keep them healthy, so the same issue applies. Which is pretty much my point: the bank that's necessary to drive your boat is just a change in quantity - not a new system. There's very little _additional_ risk from the extra batteries, in other words - and a huge decrease in risk from removing the fuel-based engine. > I've seen boats and cars where > the add on electronics weren't fused by previous > owners as they tied into the battery, I cringe to > think what would happen if such a person was to build an electric boat. What about if such a person built a fuel-powered boat? Would that make you cringe less? I'd far prefer to be next to even a badly done electric boat; there's zero chance of it exploding or poisoning miles of river with a fuel spill. > Thanks for the tip on LiFePO4. The last time I > had looked at them the technology wasn't so > mature. My pleasure! Mostly, I'm sharing what I've been learning recently, and some of it is pretty exciting stuff. 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 | 26142|26013|2011-07-01 07:23:03|j|Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Yes, same prop. 18" kiwi prop ... I do have a list somewhere with runs under different conditions when I first put in the electric motor, but they are back home on another computer (I'm traveling at the moment) and will send when I can. The differences up to about 900 RPM were in electric's favour, even against wind, tide, etc... it always got to 900 RPM quicker and easier than the big diesel. After that it just wouldn't go faster, not even in flat calm ... I think the controller had a limit setting for amps and that just cut off at that RPM. So after 900 RPM the diesel was the big winner. I've heard so much about props, much of it sufficiently contradictory, and am still not much closer to knowing which would suit a particular hull and drive situation. On the power thing, I agree you can tow a boat easily in flat calm, I used to tow my 12 ton behemoth using my dinghy and rowing (no outboard). About heading into current + chop + wind ... I've done that a few times too, and even the 45hp yanmar could not get me across Cook Straight into Wellington harbour on one occasion ... But the electric really did get me off a few lee shores (while still sailing, i.e. I just kept tacking, but electrical assisted which overcame leeway and got me out of danger). Up to its maximum revs it was almost unstoppable, and if the prop is turning at "x" revs, I doubt if it or the water can tell whether it is an electric or diesel motor providing the power. My old electrical motor is pushing a much lighter fibreglass H28 using a much smaller 14" prop, and loving it! Hence a lighter boat for me next time. p.s. Looking forward to seeing the BS 36 ... I've seen a 31 under construction, but I'd be going for the 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > J, as I understand, you were using the same prop for diesel and electric motor. This could make a good example to compare diesel and electric set-up. Do you have information/full specs for both set-ups which were used? > > Prop: number_of_blades/diameter/pitch > Diesel: Engine_Model/specs/curves, gearbox_ratio/specs > Electric: Model/specs/curves > > May be you have better info on your propeller? I found only this so far > > http://www.kiwiprops.co.nz/power_curves.php > | 26143|26143|2011-07-01 11:25:34|Denis Buggy|Fw: [origamiboats] diesel fire|> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matt Malone" >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hey Ben, >>> >>>>Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> dear all in 60 years of operating commercial vehicles we have never >>> had a diesel fire -- we have also never come across one in the trade or >>> reported in the trade press in that time . >> we have had starter fires and in the early days we had dynamo fires when >> the dynamo would become a motor and burn the belts when parked and >> engine shut off > >> the two most common fires are the contacts on the pull coil on the >> starter fusing and causing the starter to rotate --- while the starter >> gets cherry hot running on the flywheel for miles and miles the real >> problem is the heavy cable feed to the starter turning into a filament >> for a bulb as 200 amps are supplied by the alternators to keep the >> filament lighting and it is snaked around the body and chassis covered in >> oil/dust /soundproofing/ soaked in oil vapour from compressors and the >> engine breather pipe . >> common fire 2 is the motors used for ac or ventilation -- when some >> sleepy dummy goes away from the coach and does not hear the fans are >> left on --they gradually lower the voltage and when the voltage drops >> below their sweet spot they are no longer sweet they get hot and bothered >> . >> the only remedy which works is to break the battery connection first and >> then lower the temperature of the hot spots second and then fight the >> fire as if you try and fight a fire with a energy source at it heart you >> are wasting your time -- all drivers are shown what to do and we carry a >> 5 gallon of water drum for cooling the hot spot -- the fire >> extinguishers are for putting out the fire later . >> hopefully this will help and when your starter starts to click and needs >> a few attempts to start replace the starter now as it will get you >> eventually like a guy who occasionally has one too many and you need to >> trust . regards Denis Buggy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, >>>> corrosion happens. With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs >>>> a really competent source of ignition, and air. Closing the cabin >>>> air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it >>>> closed until the temperatures go down. >>> >>> >>> >>> Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat >>> >>> in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour >>> >>> before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss >>> >>> cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. >>> >>> >>> >>> When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop >>> >>> for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good >>> >>> while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full >>> >>> of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was >>> >>> pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than >>> >>> 30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and >>> >>> caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion >>> >>> happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset >>> >>> hut in just a few minutes. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the >>>> surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep. Again, >>>> closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce >>>> jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel >>>> inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. >>>> Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the >>>> batteries, leading to a very fast discharge. I have seen wires from >>>> 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through. With any high current system >>>> there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going >>>> bad and increasing its resistance. Once the process really gets >>>> underway, >>> >>> >>> >>> I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a >>> >>> few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. >>> >>> Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery >>> >>> explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch >>> >>> fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt >>> >>> that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than >>> >>> fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails >>> >>> back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > | 26144|26013|2011-07-01 13:58:16|Barney Treadway|Re: Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|I really can't believe this is still being hashed out and has resulted in name calling. Internal combustion is by its nature a violent but controlled explosion. Yes batteries are dangerous and so is a pocketknife. Are we going to argue pocketknives are dangerous as dynamite? Volatililty is pretty darn inherent in gasoline, less so with diesel and less so with a battery. Ben Okopnik wrote: >Hi, Darren - > >On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:27:22PM -0700, Darren Bos wrote: >> >> The problem I see, and I think the point >> Matt was trying to make, is that batteries really >> aren't much safer. Especially when you consider >> that most folks understand the dangers of gas, >> but if you were to take a poll as you walked the >> docks at the marina I'm sure you'd find most >> folks know a lot less about batteries (even lead >> acid, let alone the more exotic types). > >I think you may be confusing familiarity and perhaps ubiquity with >knowledge. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people on those docks >wouldn't have the slightest idea of the correct approach to setting up a >decent fuel system, or what the factors are (beyond "don't let it leak") >that would make it safe. Have you ever seen them changing the diesel >filters? More often than not, the person doing it ends up covered in >fuel, with quite a bit of it spilled in the engine compartment. If it's >wiped up at all, it's just a swish of the rag - not a thorough clean-up. >Mostly, cruising boats older than 10 years or so are a mess of garage >engineering, and fuel leaks are pretty much universal. I've done enough >work on enough boats to know. > >And engines deteriorate; it's their nature. They're complex; they're >full of different kinds of fluids, including some rather corrosive ones. >Exhaust elbows rust through and leak salt water on them; fuel hoses >crack and drip. I've been chasing after all that stuff and trying to >maintain it for well over 20 years now, as a full-time liveaboard, and >there's very little that anyone can tell me about this process that I >don't already know. > >An electric motor, by comparison, contains no corrosive liquids, has no >hoses that can rot, has no fuel that's constantly (driven by gravity) >trying to escape. The dangers associated with a battery bank are ALREADY >PRESENT in a diesel-based propulsion system; between the starter battery >and the house bank, you already have 1/4 to 1/3rd of the batteries >you'll need for an e-drive. > >In simple mathematical terms, if your risk of fire on a diesel boat is X >+ Y, where X is based on your electrical system and Y is based on your >engine (where Y is dozens if not hundreds of times higher than X), then >your risk with a battery system alone is perhaps 10% higher than X was - >but Y is *gone*. I'd say that going purely electric would decrease your >risk of fire by some 90 or 95%. > >I just cannot imagine in what way an electric system could be "not much >safer" when it means eliminating dozens of gallons of fuel and possibly >dozens of potential or existing fuel leaks. > >> So, you >> have batteries being installed in boats, more >> often than not with garage engineering and if >> your not aware how dangerous they can be, then >> you can have a big problem on your hands. > >But you're missing a key point here. Batteries normally _are_ installed >with garage engineering - at least on diesel boats. People who have done >their research about electric drives, spent a large amount of time >deciding what type of batteries to use and choosing a motor, etc. are >*far* less likely to do a sloppy job with their batteries; in fact, I >have yet to see one single sloppy installation of an electric drive >system. > >> Even lead acid vent hydrogen, which >> usually isn't a problem with one battery, but >> with an entire bank you have to start thinking >> about venting. > >Also true on the average cruising boat with a diesel. As a general rule >of thumb, you need to equalize your batteries at least once a month to >keep them healthy, so the same issue applies. Which is pretty much my >point: the bank that's necessary to drive your boat is just a change in >quantity - not a new system. There's very little _additional_ risk from >the extra batteries, in other words - and a huge decrease in risk from >removing the fuel-based engine. > >> I've seen boats and cars where >> the add on electronics weren't fused by previous >> owners as they tied into the battery, I cringe to >> think what would happen if such a person was to build an electric boat. > >What about if such a person built a fuel-powered boat? Would that make >you cringe less? I'd far prefer to be next to even a badly done electric >boat; there's zero chance of it exploding or poisoning miles of river >with a fuel spill. > >> Thanks for the tip on LiFePO4. The last time I >> had looked at them the technology wasn't so >> mature. > >My pleasure! Mostly, I'm sharing what I've been learning recently, and >some of it is pretty exciting stuff. > > >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 | 26145|26013|2011-07-01 20:19:02|badpirate36|Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Pocketknife cuts fuse, fuse trumps dynamite and dynamite blasts pocketknife...What was the question? /.o) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > I really can't believe this is still being hashed out and has resulted in name calling. Internal combustion is by its nature a violent but controlled explosion. Yes batteries are dangerous and so is a pocketknife. Are we going to argue pocketknives are dangerous as dynamite? > | 26146|26013|2011-07-02 00:12:46|wild_explorer|Attn J -> Weight distribution (Re:electric motors)|Looking at the chart of Kiwi Feater 18.5" Prop, it should run at about 500-700 RPM (with smaller pitch) for 10HP motor. So, 10 HP motor may be overloaded running 900 rpm. Company recommends 14-15" props for electric motors. Theoretically: bigger prop @ lower RPM => more efficiency. It is preferable to go for low RPM if bigger size of the propeller is acceptable for the application. Someone can play with online calculator (just found it) to estimate what motor power may be needed for your boat. I did not check how accurate it is, but looks reasonable (and prop must match the motor of cause). Go through all tabs. Final result is on last one. http://www.psychosnail.com/BoatSpeedCalculator.aspx Just an example: Boat: 22,500 LBS LWL 30ft Max hull speed 7.34 kn POWER REQUIRED (just to push the hull) to reach speed: 3.7 kn (50%) - 11 HP 7.4 kn (100%) - 54 HP As you see, to go 2 times faster, you need 5 times more power. The choice is yours ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "j" wrote: > > Yes, same prop. 18" kiwi prop ... I do have a list somewhere with runs under different conditions when I first put in the electric motor, but they are back home on another computer (I'm traveling at the moment) and will send when I can. > > The differences up to about 900 RPM were in electric's favour, even against wind, tide, etc... it always got to 900 RPM quicker and easier than the big diesel. > After that it just wouldn't go faster, not even in flat calm ... I think the controller had a limit setting for amps and that just cut off at that RPM. > So after 900 RPM the diesel was the big winner. > > > > > http://www.kiwiprops.co.nz/power_curves.php > > > | 26147|26127|2011-07-02 17:41:57|brentswain38|Re: EV boats - numbers|On my current 31 footer, I went from 10 hp to 22 hp with little improvement in boat speed. I would go back ten HP if I were replacing it. The 22 hp is much heavier and hurt light air performance. On my last boat, a 29 footer, I windjammed for three years, including a trip from BC to Tahiti and back , before installing a 4 hp diesel, which gave her 2 1/2 knots. I found that the combination of mainsail and engine, when going to windward , is greater than the total of the two. Headwinds that I could neither motor against , nor sail against with the mainsail or engine alone, I had no problem with using both. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Jimbo wrote: > > Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental skills (patience and planning and > accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). > > I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. > > For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. > > Cheers, > Jim. > > PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my snotter. > > Where is Alex these days? > > > > > > > > > > > On 30/06/2011, at 5:39 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > This has been a very interesting discussion. > > Just a few comments to no one in particular..... > > I am very skeptical about the hp figures required for a boat. I once > towed a 48 foot 25 ton ferro ketch with a 3 hp motor. In flat calm, I > could get her close to 3 knots. This sounds good but if there was any > wind against us, I may not have got her moving at all or maybe not had > the hp to get the bow into the wind and only been able to go sideways. > My point is the amount of hp required to move a boat into a chop with a > 15 knot wind is much, much more than required than when it is calm. So > much more that if I tried adding an extra 3 hp from an electric motor to > the equation, I don't think I would see any increase in speed. As a > further example, if I was trying to get away from a lee shore, I don't > think the extra assist of an small, underpowered electric motor would do > much for me at all. I know from personal experience with my full > powered diesel, I need max hp and revs in order to really help out in > these conditions or I am wasting my time and might as well shut the > motor off. > > As I said in an earlier posting, when I really need a motor is going > through a pass with adverse current or wind. If you need to turn into > the wind to get through a pass that has a 3 knot current how do you do > it without a strong engine? Go somewhere else? You will miss out on > some great spots. In some coral atolls, the current, always flows out, > and never reverses due to the inflow of water over the rest of the reef. > I saw a boat sail back and forth for 3 days once, waiting for a > favorable wind so they could get into an atoll. They finally gave up > and missed out on a fantastic place. > > I also helped an engine-less boat who was being swept up onto a reef by > the current when the wind died. The skipper later bragged how he > sailed everywhere without an engine. If you didn't count the times he > was towed or helped and didn't count the all good places he was scared > to go into, then he was probably telling the truth. There are cases > (more often than some let on, IMO) where you simply can't sail out of > trouble and having a good engine adds a huge safety factor. > > Personally, I think if all I wanted to do was move my boat for an hour, > in relative calm, say in and out of a marina, by far the most cost > effective thing to do would be to just get a good used outboard motor. > If you keep the fuel clean and keep it lubed up, they are quite > reliable, and relatively cheap. > > Cheers, Paul > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26148|26131|2011-07-03 03:04:12|Aaron|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|  http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=146 From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:05 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,   Some ideas could be borrowed from Fischer Panda... I was unable to find prices or more detailed information (just what in PDF files there). What is the price range? It is good idea to combine and match two systems. Looks similar what Ben's friend has, but higher level. Water-cooled electric motor would be nice on a metal boat. Make it possible to run on batteries only, but when you need more power you can start diesel generator. This will solve the problem "more power when needed" and extend usable range and not rely on batteries only. This way, if someone want to start just with batteries and see if it is enough for someone application - fine. If not, diesel generator available as part of the system. Just need to have more powerful electric motor from the beginning and generator (later). If it was cheap..... I see that golf cart DC motors are about 10hp max? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Fischer Panda does some fancy diesel electric systems using high voltage > AC and then conversion to high voltage DC with a variety of water cooled > motors. Very efficient but very expensive. I would think that a water > cooled motor is very desirable in a boat. > > http://www.fischerpanda.de/products/eng/335 > > Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26149|26131|2011-07-03 09:15:10|M.J. Malone|Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application,|I see they are using a contactor to break the flow of current. I have seen and experiment where a pack of FETs is used. This is another problem looking for the "stainless steel pipe nipple" solution. Breaking 450 Amps surely and safely, is expensive. I found it interesting that they cite a law about brushed and brushless motors with respect to gasoline and propane. I would like to read the law they are referencing. Limiting ignition sources is always a good idea -- limiting fugitive fuel a better one. Matt Aaron wrote: >   > http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=146 > > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:05 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Electric drive. AC? DC? Naval application, > > >   > > Some ideas could be borrowed from Fischer Panda... I was unable to find prices or more detailed information (just what in PDF files there). What is the price range? > > It is good idea to combine and match two systems. Looks similar what Ben's friend has, but higher level. Water-cooled electric motor would be nice on a metal boat. > > Make it possible to run on batteries only, but when you need more power you can start diesel generator. This will solve the problem "more power when needed" and extend usable range and not rely on batteries only. > > This way, if someone want to start just with batteries and see if it is enough for someone application - fine. If not, diesel generator available as part of the system. Just need to have more powerful electric motor from the beginning and generator (later). > > If it was cheap..... > > I see that golf cart DC motors are about 10hp max? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> Fischer Panda does some fancy diesel electric systems using high voltage >> AC and then conversion to high voltage DC with a variety of water cooled >> motors. Very efficient but very expensive. I would think that a water >> cooled motor is very desirable in a boat. >> >> http://www.fischerpanda.de/products/eng/335 >> >> Paul > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26150|26143|2011-07-03 10:08:32|Carl Volkwein|Re: Fw: [origamiboats] diesel fire|WalMart parking lot in Spencer West Virginia last winter. --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Denis Buggy wrote: From: Denis Buggy Subject: Fw: [origamiboats] diesel fire To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 1, 2011, 11:25 AM > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matt Malone" >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hey Ben, >>> >>>>Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> dear all  in 60 years of operating commercial vehicles  we have never >>> had a diesel fire -- we have  also never come across one in the trade or >>> reported in the trade press in that time . >> we have had  starter fires and in the early days we had dynamo fires when >> the dynamo would become a motor and burn the belts when parked and >> engine shut off > >> the two most common fires are the contacts on the pull coil on the >> starter fusing and causing the starter to rotate --- while the starter >> gets cherry hot running on the flywheel for miles and miles  the real >> problem is the heavy cable feed to the starter turning into a filament >> for a bulb as 200 amps are supplied by the alternators to keep the >> filament lighting and it is snaked around the body and chassis covered in >> oil/dust /soundproofing/ soaked in oil vapour from compressors and the >> engine breather pipe . >> common fire  2 is the motors used for ac or ventilation -- when some >> sleepy dummy goes away from the coach  and does not hear the fans are >> left on --they gradually lower the voltage and when the voltage drops >> below their sweet spot they are no longer sweet they get hot and bothered >> . >> the only remedy which works is to break the battery connection first and >> then lower the temperature of the hot spots  second  and then fight the >> fire as if you try and fight a fire with a energy source  at it heart you >> are wasting your time -- all drivers  are shown what to do and we carry a >> 5 gallon of water  drum for cooling the hot spot -- the fire >> extinguishers are for putting out the fire later . >> hopefully this will help  and when your starter starts to click and needs >> a few  attempts  to start  replace the starter  now as it will get you >> eventually like a guy who occasionally has one too many  and you need to >> trust . regards Denis Buggy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>      On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 04:30:48PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Problems with hybrids? People are human, mistakes happen, wear happens, >>>> corrosion happens.   With diesel, even with a hole in a tank, one needs >>>> a really competent source of ignition, and air.   Closing the cabin >>>> air-tight will put out even a bad diesel fire -- make sure to leave it >>>> closed until the temperatures go down. >>> >>> >>> >>> Matt, I presume you've never seen a diesel fire. I saw a 75' steel boat >>> >>> in the Bahamas that had caught fire - diesel problem - about an hour >>> >>> before I got there. By the time I anchored, it looked like charred Swiss >>> >>> cheese; the flame had melted hundreds of holes through the steel. >>> >>> >>> >>> When I was in the army, I worked in, and later ran, the generator shop >>> >>> for a Hawk missile detachment at Ft. Lewis. It was my job, for a good >>> >>> while, to set off the "heater" in wintertime: a 55-gallon drum 3/4 full >>> >>> of sand, with about half a gallon of diesel in it. All I ever did was >>> >>> pour in the diesel, wad up some newspaper, and light it off; less than >>> >>> 30 seconds later, the diesel went "WHUMPF" (don't stand too close!) and >>> >>> caught fire. The nice part of that heater was that all the combustion >>> >>> happened in the sand - no flames - and that thing heated a huge quonset >>> >>> hut in just a few minutes. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Gasoline is far more flammable, but even then, it can only burn on the >>>> surface, whether it is a puddle one inch deep or 2 feet deep.   Again, >>>> closing off the air can work, but gasoline is more likely to produce >>>> jet-flames where there is any leakage of fumes from boiling fuel >>>> inside. At least these flames are on the outside of the boat though. >>>> Any battery system can short just outside the batteries, or inside the >>>> batteries, leading to a very fast discharge.   I have seen wires from >>>> 3/0 to 750 MCM arced clean through.   With any high current system >>>> there is also the potential of a high ampere connection slowly going >>>> bad and increasing its resistance.   Once the process really gets >>>> underway, >>> >>> >>> >>> I've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of high-amp shorts. Caused quite a >>> >>> few of them myself, and have the half-melted wrenches to show for it. >>> >>> Seen batteries thrown into fires, too, and have _never_ seen a battery >>> >>> explode from that. By contrast, I've never seen gasoline _not_ catch >>> >>> fire, violently, when a match was struck next to it. I seriously doubt >>> >>> that you can make a real case for batteries being more dangerous than >>> >>> fuel - especially since you yourself were just saying, a few emails >>> >>> back, that batteries can't even approach the energy density of fuel. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------------ 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] | 26151|26151|2011-07-03 11:02:47|SHANE ROTHWELL|Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|Brent,  Jim, Paul et all,   I could not agree with you more Brent, were it not for those who buck convention, push the envelope & have the balls to think & act for themselves, we would all still be living in caves. Spot on.   But without integrity, what's that worth?   And as distateful as I find Ben, he does at times come up with good ideas & info.   What churns my stomache and that which I will not accept, under any circumstances whatsoever, is the bullshit, and outright  fraudulence he mixes in with it, which of course (to my mind) negates all he claims. Everything.   As, what do we have here, an open, free exchange of hopefully useful info from people who are interested in learning and shareing their experiece, knowledge and ideas, or a guessing game as to the truth and validity of "info" from  a pushy, beligerant jerk who is willing to lie, bullshit and deceive .... absolutly anything....to maintain his over inflated ego? About the only thing I can think of that is posative about "it" is that he openly admits that regarding the economy in the usa, he's clealy one of the deer caught in the headlights.  So at least we have something to look forward to....... impact.   Shane P.S. And ya, where is Alex these days? Roughing it in Vietnam?   Re: EV boats - numbers Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@...   brentswain38 Sat Jul 2, 2011 2:41 pm (PDT) On my current 31 footer, I went from 10 hp to 22 hp with little improvement in boat speed. I would go back ten HP if I were replacing it. The 22 hp is much heavier and hurt light air performance. On my last boat, a 29 footer, I windjammed for three years, including a trip from BC to Tahiti and back , before installing a 4 hp diesel, which gave her 2 1/2 knots. I found that the combination of mainsail and engine, when going to windward , is greater than the total of the two. Headwinds that I could neither motor against , nor sail against with the mainsail or engine alone, I had no problem with using both. --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, Jimbo wrote: > > Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of >windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in >wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to >sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we >have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one >outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a >challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back >for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too >uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no >engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and >more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of >HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental >skills (patience and planning and > accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). > > I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially >in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light >weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric >systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. > > For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully >pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. > > Cheers, > Jim. > > PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a >little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the >presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my >snotter. > > Where is Alex these days? > > > | 26152|26151|2011-07-03 17:05:48|wild_explorer|Re: Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|Looks like very useless topic for this group. No learning value at all. Everybody has their weaknesses. Someone start taking "You are straggle to be funny", another one appeal "to the masses" (like politician or union leader), etc, etc, etc... How about "Let it go"? How about acting smart instead of trying to have "last word"? I do not see any "fabrications". I see only some claims which are based on misinformation. Lot of information is taken from Internet - not always best source. As discussion proceeds, misinformation got cleared up and most people agree that all sides were right in their claims, but they were talking about different part of the very complex subject. And discussion about electrical drive for a sailboat is interesting one, I learned/refreshed many things from it. Some group's members did a lot of research on this subject and willing to share it here.| 26153|25669|2011-07-04 11:49:34|Matt Malone|7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. In summary: - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: m_j_malone@... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 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] | 26154|25669|2011-07-04 14:44:21|aaron riis|stuffing box|hey, all I bought a used stuffing box, not the traditional kind it's called a glenwood seal type basically like the seal on the crankshaft on an engine with a grease nipple and a hose barb.  I guess it's what they call a dripless I like it because it is short and I would be able to move my engine 4 0r6 inches back increasing my living space, but it's a gamble if I then cut my shaft too short.  Also is a flex coupling essential? Aaron --- On Mon, 7/4/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, July 4, 2011, 8:46 AM   Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. In summary: - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- From: m_j_malone@... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26155|26155|2011-07-05 16:53:02|kingsknight4life|PILOTHOUSE CLEATS|I noticed that people have been putting cleats on the top and on the back of their pilothouses. Is there an advantage either way? I guess on the back you don't have to lean on them?? any thoughts or advice? Also some have one others 2? Thanks Rowland| 26156|25669|2011-07-05 18:14:20|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|The problem with 7018 is they are very sensitive to moisture, and wont penetrate any dirt , certainly nowhere near as well as 6011, which is light years better at penetrating and welding dirty metal in doubtful conditions, than any other rod on the market.It is far more forgiving, 7018 is anything but forgiving. With 7018, in a tight corner,it almost takes a jackhammer to get the slag out.It welds as slow as a bureaucrat thinks. All outside welds have to be ground anyway. 6011 is far better for overhead welding and penetrates far better than 7018. For inside , 7024 works well , has very easy slag removal , and is extremely fast and easy to weld with , on horizontal surfaces. For uphands on tank ends, 6013 gives a smooth weld, which makes it easy to spot any holes.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > In summary: > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: m_j_malone@... > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > 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] > | 26157|26151|2011-07-05 18:16:40|brentswain38|Re: Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|One mans bullshit is another man's truth. Only open, uncensored debate will reveal the difference. Galileo, Copernicus, Da Vinci, the Wright brothers, Guttenburg, Franklin, Issac Newton , Festindon, Columbus, Einstine, etc etc were all considered bullshit artists at one time, and censoring them was widely supported. Last I heard, Alex was driving a bus in Victoria. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > Brent,  Jim, Paul et all, >   > I could not agree with you more Brent, were it not for those who buck > convention, push the envelope & have the balls to think & act for themselves, we > would all still be living in caves. Spot on. >   > But without integrity, what's that worth? >   > And as distateful as I find Ben, he does at times come up with good ideas & > info. >   > What churns my stomache and that which I will not accept, under any > circumstances whatsoever, is the bullshit, and outright  fraudulence he mixes in > with it, which of course (to my mind) negates all he claims. Everything. > >   > As, what do we have here, an open, free exchange of hopefully useful info from > people who are interested in learning and shareing their experiece, knowledge > and ideas, or a guessing game as to the truth and validity of "info" from  a > pushy, beligerant jerk who is willing to lie, bullshit and deceive .... > absolutly anything....to maintain his over inflated ego? > > About the only thing I can think of that is posative about "it" is that he > openly admits that regarding the economy in the usa, he's clealy one of the deer > caught in the headlights.  So at least we have something to look forward > to....... impact. >   > Shane > P.S. And ya, where is Alex these days? Roughing it in Vietnam? >   > Re: EV boats - numbers > Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@...   brentswain38 > Sat Jul 2, 2011 2:41 pm (PDT) > > > On my current 31 footer, I went from 10 hp to 22 hp with little improvement in > boat speed. I would go back ten HP if I were replacing it. The 22 hp is much > heavier and hurt light air performance. > On my last boat, a 29 footer, I windjammed for three years, including a trip > from BC to Tahiti and back , before installing a 4 hp diesel, which gave her 2 > 1/2 knots. I found that the combination of mainsail and engine, when going to > windward , is greater than the total of the two. Headwinds that I could neither > motor against , nor sail against with the mainsail or engine alone, I had no > problem with using both. > > --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, Jimbo wrote: > > > > Very true. We are sailing a 40' cat with a 24' beam, so there is lots of > >windage. However, for auxiliary propulsion, we only have 2 x 8 HP outboards in > >wells. This is usually sufficient 98% of the time, but sometimes obliges us to > >sail more and/or plan more carefully. During the last few months, in fact, we > >have come to windward from the Turks and Caicos to Dominica with only one > >outboard working. Daggerboards help the windward performance but it still was a > >challenge, especially along the north coast of the DR. OTOH today we turned back > >for the first time - going from Dominica to Martinique was just too > >uncomfortable. Poor planning? On our previous boat (7t steel mono), we had no > >engine for 6 months but used the land breezes, 3 HP outboard on the dinghy and > >more planning and patience to get around. You don't really need huge amounts of > >HP if you are willing to use other skills, be they sailing skills or mental > >skills (patience and planning and > > accepting that some destinations might just be on the no-go list). > > > > I am interested in the electric systems and wait for improvements, especially > >in battery technology which would be the biggest impediment for us on a light > >weight cat (6t). I note that many of the Lagoon cats were fitted with electric > >systems and many owners have changed back to diesel. > > > > For now, we have a wifi signal and our little eggbeater outboard faithfully > >pushes us back to Roseau at the tortoise-thrashing speed of 3 knots. > > > > Cheers, > > Jim. > > > > PS. You hit the nail on the head, Shane. The sanctimonious attitude of Ben is a > >little much to stomach at times. Sometimes he has good info or ideas but the > >presentation and manner of discussing them with others just really gets up my > >snotter. > > > > Where is Alex these days? > > > > > > > | 26158|25669|2011-07-05 21:00:40|mauro gonzaga|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Electrode cathegorization according to AWS and ASME II/C indicates first two digits to be UTS (ultimate tensile strength) of the weld deposit in Kpsi, therefore 60 means 60,000 psi UTS whilst 70 means 70,000 psi UTS. Both weld in ac and dcep (alternate current & direct with electrode positive). Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:14 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson   The problem with 7018 is they are very sensitive to moisture, and wont penetrate any dirt , certainly nowhere near as well as 6011, which is light years better at penetrating and welding dirty metal in doubtful conditions, than any other rod on the market.It is far more forgiving, 7018 is anything but forgiving. With 7018, in a tight corner,it almost takes a jackhammer to get the slag out.It welds as slow as a bureaucrat thinks. All outside welds have to be ground anyway. 6011 is far better for overhead welding and penetrates far better than 7018. For inside , 7024 works well , has very easy slag removal , and is extremely fast and easy to weld with , on horizontal surfaces. For uphands on tank ends, 6013 gives a smooth weld, which makes it easy to spot any holes.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > In summary: > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: m_j_malone@... > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > 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] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26159|24850|2011-07-05 22:49:25|wild_explorer|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Dough, I saw the article "The Builders" in "Spirit, Southwest airlines" (July 2011 issue, pages 92-93). Did you get your copy ;)? Nice picture of your sub there. Mostly, the information is about your sub project, but it was mentioned that you want to replicate "Nutting Wong". Do you plan to go full size after a model? Or did you change your mind after Kay sailed original one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a > boat in its own. :) > | 26160|24850|2011-07-05 23:24:19|Doug Jackson|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Thanks, they sent us a copy. Our hull lines were drawn by Jack Carson who borrowed from Brent's work on the 52 ft, Nuthin Wong and experience with Paul Liebenberg's 65 footer. Our hull will be 74 feet and also junk rigged. And no, Kay is more excited about starting the build than ever, being on the Nuthin Wong was actually great for raising her confidence level. She knows she can handle being sea-sick and she knows she can be on a boat the size of the Nuthin Wong and make it a much better experience. I have a second submarine that is weeks from completion and then we clear the pad and start cutting steel for the sailboat. I'm very excited about finally staring on it. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 9:49:14 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong" Dough, I saw the article "The Builders" in "Spirit, Southwest airlines" (July 2011 issue, pages 92-93). Did you get your copy ;)? Nice picture of your sub there. Mostly, the information is about your sub project, but it was mentioned that you want to replicate "Nutting Wong". Do you plan to go full size after a model? Or did you change your mind after Kay sailed original one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a > boat in its own. :) > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26161|26151|2011-07-05 23:52:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:04:14PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > One mans bullshit is another man's truth. Only open, uncensored debate will reveal the difference. Which Shane - whom I've got kill-filed, incidentally, so that I don't normally see his slavering, inane, and half-insane drivel - will do anything to prevent. He specializes in his political party's brand of "debate", which consists of unceasingly smearing the opposition with all sorts of utterly moronic accusations in the hope that one or more will stick simply because it makes for a good sound bite (perfect example: his nonsense below. Epithets all over the place - and not a single example of what my "fraudulence" consists of. Same Shane, different day...) He does not possess even the saving grace of the least hint of reasoning ability; just slavering hatred of anyone who shows him up for what he is. Has a psychotic fixation on me, and (as I recall) on some others as well, and would be much better off after a long, calming stay at a state institution for his kind... but, alas, the mental health budget for his area is clearly under par. Too bad. Filtering him out of my inbox, though, keeps it down to occasional comical chittering, like that of an outraged hamster: I only get to see his meaningless blather in other people's emails, when they quote him. > Last I heard, Alex was driving a bus in Victoria. That's really too bad. I hope that his situation improves so that he can rejoin us soon. As a participant in this group, I regret the absence of a knowledgeable, sensible member; as one of the moderators, I keenly feel the lack - especially when I'm short on time myself. 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| 26162|25669|2011-07-06 05:39:36|Gary H. Lucas|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Matt, Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. Gary H. Lucas From: Matt Malone Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. In summary: - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com From: mailto:matt%40waite.net 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] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26163|25669|2011-07-06 13:42:07|M.J. Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. Matt "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > Matt, > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > Gary H. Lucas > From: Matt Malone > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > In summary: > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > 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] > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26164|26155|2011-07-06 15:21:29|brentswain38|Re: PILOTHOUSE CLEATS|I use one for my main sheet and the others for short tacking into a harbour, for the jib sheets in light airs. Put them near the upper outside corner and they won't be in your way. Check it out by laying back there, before fully welding them down. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > I noticed that people have been putting cleats on the top and on the back of their pilothouses. Is there an advantage either way? I guess on the back you don't have to lean on them?? > any thoughts or advice? Also some have one others 2? > Thanks > Rowland > | 26165|24850|2011-07-06 15:47:34|Barney Treadway|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Just curious, Is there anything online regarding Nuthin Wong's internal structural arrangement? Was it completely frameless? or does it have some integral bulkheads given its length? Also plate thickness? Was it done according to Brent's oversight or just to his concept? Thanks! On 7/5/2011 9:24 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Thanks, they sent us a copy. Our hull lines were drawn by Jack Carson who > borrowed from Brent's work on the 52 ft, Nuthin Wong and experience > with Paul > Liebenberg's 65 footer. Our hull will be 74 feet and also junk rigged. > And > no, Kay is more excited about starting the build than ever, being on > the Nuthin > Wong was actually great for raising her confidence level. She knows > she can > handle being sea-sick and she knows she can be on a boat the size of > the Nuthin > Wong and make it a much better experience. I have a second submarine > that is > weeks from completion and then we clear the pad and start cutting > steel for the > sailboat. I'm very excited about finally staring on it. > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 9:49:14 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong" > > Dough, I saw the article "The Builders" in "Spirit, Southwest > airlines" (July > 2011 issue, pages 92-93). Did you get your copy ;)? Nice picture of > your sub > there. > > Mostly, the information is about your sub project, but it was > mentioned that you > want to replicate "Nutting Wong". Do you plan to go full size after a > model? Or > did you change your mind after Kay sailed original one? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough > to be a > > boat in its own. :) > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26166|25669|2011-07-06 23:23:34|Gary H. Lucas|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Matt, What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8” are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. Gary H. Lucas From: M.J. Malone Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. Matt "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > Matt, > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > Gary H. Lucas > From: Matt Malone > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > In summary: > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > 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] > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26167|24850|2011-07-07 15:57:56|brentswain38|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|It was 1/4 inch plate for the hull . The topsides had longitudinal angle only, no transverse framing. The bottom was mostly tankage . They sent us far more half inch plate than we ordered, so we used it for tank ends and baffles, giving a huge amount of support for the twin keels. Several days pounding on a rocky, totally exposed lee shore, in a gale in the Balerics, did her absolutely zero damage, as a result. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > Just curious, > > Is there anything online regarding Nuthin Wong's internal structural > arrangement? Was it completely frameless? or does it have some integral > bulkheads given its length? Also plate thickness? Was it done according > to Brent's oversight or just to his concept? > > Thanks! > > > On 7/5/2011 9:24 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks, they sent us a copy. Our hull lines were drawn by Jack Carson who > > borrowed from Brent's work on the 52 ft, Nuthin Wong and experience > > with Paul > > Liebenberg's 65 footer. Our hull will be 74 feet and also junk rigged. > > And > > no, Kay is more excited about starting the build than ever, being on > > the Nuthin > > Wong was actually great for raising her confidence level. She knows > > she can > > handle being sea-sick and she knows she can be on a boat the size of > > the Nuthin > > Wong and make it a much better experience. I have a second submarine > > that is > > weeks from completion and then we clear the pad and start cutting > > steel for the > > sailboat. I'm very excited about finally staring on it. > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: wild_explorer > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 9:49:14 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong" > > > > Dough, I saw the article "The Builders" in "Spirit, Southwest > > airlines" (July > > 2011 issue, pages 92-93). Did you get your copy ;)? Nice picture of > > your sub > > there. > > > > Mostly, the information is about your sub project, but it was > > mentioned that you > > want to replicate "Nutting Wong". Do you plan to go full size after a > > model? Or > > did you change your mind after Kay sailed original one? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough > > to be a > > > boat in its own. :) > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26168|26151|2011-07-07 16:01:36|brentswain38|Re: Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|Relax and lighten up you two.It takes two to tango, altho you two do make entertaining dance partners, for those of us with a sense of humour. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:04:14PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > One mans bullshit is another man's truth. Only open, uncensored debate will reveal the difference. > > Which Shane - whom I've got kill-filed, incidentally, so that I don't > normally see his slavering, inane, and half-insane drivel - will do > anything to prevent. He specializes in his political party's brand of > "debate", which consists of unceasingly smearing the opposition with all > sorts of utterly moronic accusations in the hope that one or more will > stick simply because it makes for a good sound bite (perfect example: > his nonsense below. Epithets all over the place - and not a single > example of what my "fraudulence" consists of. Same Shane, different > day...) > > He does not possess even the saving grace of the least hint of reasoning > ability; just slavering hatred of anyone who shows him up for what he > is. Has a psychotic fixation on me, and (as I recall) on some others as > well, and would be much better off after a long, calming stay at a state > institution for his kind... but, alas, the mental health budget for his > area is clearly under par. Too bad. Filtering him out of my inbox, > though, keeps it down to occasional comical chittering, like that of an > outraged hamster: I only get to see his meaningless blather in other > people's emails, when they quote him. > > > Last I heard, Alex was driving a bus in Victoria. > > That's really too bad. I hope that his situation improves so that he can > rejoin us soon. As a participant in this group, I regret the absence of > a knowledgeable, sensible member; as one of the moderators, I keenly > feel the lack - especially when I'm short on time myself. > > > 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 > | 26169|25669|2011-07-07 16:12:12|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|6011 is a learning experience. Once you get the hang of it, it works well. All outside welds should be ground ,anyway, and inside welds, if wire brushed and chipped well, hold paint very well. If any epoxy finds a pinhole, it seeps thru, and becomes a completely unremoveable epoxy rivet , eliminating any chance of a leak. To get a leak , you still have to get a pinhole on the outside weld to match up perfectly with a pinhole on the inside weld, then have pinholes in every one of 5 coats of epoxy tar on the outside match up with pinholes in every one of three coats of epoxy tar on the inside, plus get past the epoxy which has seeped into and totally saturated the first two pinholes. 6011 is the only rod which truly penetrates well, and is extremely forgiving of the conditions in which it is used. 7018 slag comes of real easy; on a flat surface. Weld into a tight corner, with the cooling weld shrinking the slag in further, and it is a completely different picture. Then it takes some serious pounding to get it out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "M.J. Malone" wrote: > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26170|26155|2011-07-07 16:32:12|brentswain38|Re: PILOTHOUSE CLEATS|I also leave a 6 ft line tied around my boom, just ahead of the main sheet attachment . This, I some times tie to these cleats, when easing off on a reach, then let the main sheet of completely. When easing off further, I tie them to the rail, and let the main sheet off. . Further off, I tie it to the bottom of the turnbuckle ,then sheet the main in hard against it, almost completely flattening the main out. Handrails are another tie off option, for this line. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use one for my main sheet and the others for short tacking into a harbour, for the jib sheets in light airs. Put them near the upper outside corner and they won't be in your way. Check it out by laying back there, before fully welding them down. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > > > I noticed that people have been putting cleats on the top and on the back of their pilothouses. Is there an advantage either way? I guess on the back you don't have to lean on them?? > > any thoughts or advice? Also some have one others 2? > > Thanks > > Rowland > > > | 26171|26171|2011-07-08 04:24:39|Kim|Coiling the anchor wire/rode/chain on to Brent's anchor winch.|Hi Brent and all ... I'm about to install the forward mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the tang for the inner forestay, and I started to think about how Brent's anchor winch works. I've never used one of Brent's anchor winches, or anything like it, and I'm wondering how the anchor wire/rode/chain is spread evenly across its drum as the anchor is hauled in. How do you stop it all bunching up on one side of the drum (and maybe becoming tangled and jammed)? I think I remember one of Brent's posts in which he said he simply used his foot to move the rode, to spread it evenly across the drum, as it was wound in on the winch drum. If the winch was powered (either electric or hydraulic), that means you would still have to stand next to the anchor winch as the anchor came up, instead of flicking a switch from the comfort of the wheelhouse? Most importantly: between the anchor winch and the bow roller is a mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the inner forestay. On the relatively short foredeck of the 26-footer, these are located right in front of the anchor winch. At the same time, the anchor winch drum goes right across the width of the cabin front. Would not the sampson post and the inner forestay (particularly the inner forestay) prevent the rode from being moved across the winch drum as the anchor was winched in (particularly if the rode was pretty taut)? In wondering about this I'm probably imagining a problem that doesn't exist; but any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 26172|25669|2011-07-08 06:01:09|Anthony Thomson|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best choice but here's my thinking I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a ton. Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really missing out here? I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people think? cheers Anthony On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > ** > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn�t seal very well. The slag > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8� out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > position using 7/32� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6� pipe with welded 3/4� > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > did that. When I told him he said �Okay do it everywhere!'� and we wound up > with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier > to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, > just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26173|25669|2011-07-08 06:32:56|Kim|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Hi Anthony ... For what it's worth, I've been using 2.5mm 6013 rods for *ALL* the mild steel welding on the Swayne 26-footer I'm building. The specs for particular rods I'm using (BOC Smootharc 13) are on page 339 of this file: http://www.bocworldofwelding.com.au/media/pdf/WELDING%20CONSUMABLES-Mild%20Steel.pdf So far I've had no welding problems whatsoever. For example, I believe it's not uncommon for some welds to split when the various hull components of Brent's designs are being pulled together (as there are some very large forces involved there); but that hasn't ever happened to me. They seem pretty forgiving and easy to use. In Australia, 6013 rods are by far the most common and by far the cheapest. Other types are rare and very expensive. That's the main reason I went for the 6013's; but so far they haven't let me down. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thomson wrote: > > This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best > choice but here's my thinking > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. > Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at > my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a > particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or > 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the > 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really > missing out here? > I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat > welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? > > ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too > far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. > > Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat > maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people > think? > > cheers > > Anthony | 26174|26171|2011-07-08 08:04:21|john dean|A bottle of Champane for Kim|Hello Kim where are you doing your work? I would like to leave you a bottle of Champagne to celebrate your progress. John --- On Fri, 7/8/11, Kim wrote: > From: Kim > Subject: [origamiboats] Coiling the anchor wire/rode/chain on to Brent's anchor winch. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 4:24 AM > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I'm about to install the forward mooring-bitt/sampson post, > and the tang for the inner forestay, and I started to think > about how Brent's anchor winch works. > > I've never used one of Brent's anchor winches, or anything > like it, and I'm wondering how the anchor wire/rode/chain is > spread evenly across its drum as the anchor is hauled in. > How do you stop it all bunching up on one side of the drum > (and maybe becoming tangled and jammed)? > > I think I remember one of Brent's posts in which he said he > simply used his foot to move the rode, to spread it evenly > across the drum, as it was wound in on the winch drum. > > If the winch was powered (either electric or hydraulic), > that means you would still have to stand next to the anchor > winch as the anchor came up, instead of flicking a switch > from the comfort of the wheelhouse? > > Most importantly: between the anchor winch and the bow > roller is a mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the inner > forestay. On the relatively short foredeck of the 26-footer, > these are located right in front of the anchor winch. At the > same time, the anchor winch drum goes right across the width > of the cabin front. Would not the sampson post and the inner > forestay (particularly the inner forestay) prevent the rode > from being moved across the winch drum as the anchor was > winched in (particularly if the rode was pretty taut)? > > In wondering about this I'm probably imagining a problem > that doesn't exist; but any comments would be greatly > appreciated. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 26175|25669|2011-07-08 11:18:56|Matt Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Anthony Wrote: > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. I do not use a rod oven. I have considered building one, but have not gotten around to it. I keep my rods indoors in a dry place, in a completely sealed box, take out 10-20 rods at a time in a few seconds, and re-seal the box, and use those 10-20 immediately, and use the entire box over the course of a week. If I were doing a job as big as an orgami, I have no doubt, my rods would never get a chance to absorb moisture. I would just buy another 10 lbs as often as I buy bread. A pro welder told me that if one does not use a rod oven, and 7018 absorbs moisture, it essentially becomes 7014, which is not a bad rod. He also said, when the rod is used, the heating of the rod shank, as current is flowing to the tip, heats the rod and drives off water. He indicated, the problems arise near the beginning of the weld, when the rod has not been hot for very long. I can say, I have witnessed some rods giving a wisp of smoke along their length as I use them. I am guessing that 80 ocv means 80 open circuit volts. All I can say is, I am using E7018 AC on a 250 Amp Airco farmer's air-cooled buzz-box type welder that might weigh 80 pounds, and it works great. My Dad got me the welder at a garage sale for $100 close to 20 years ago. I am using Lincoln rods right now. I cannot remember the other brands I have used. >I'm told however, that the 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged >for perfect welds. Am I really missing out here? I burned probably 40-60 lbs of 6011/6013 over the years, and have never been confident that my next weld would be good enough to be water tight.** Then I tried 7018 (AC, 4mm, close to 200 Amps) and created a beautiful weld, with the first rod, and every rod after. I will always use 7018 for the finish pass, even if I get better at using 6011. I am 100% confident I can make water-tight welds now. My next sealed project will be to weld up a vacuum tank to use as a buffer between my pump and my fibreglass layup, so I do not get epoxy in my pump if something unusual happens. I have no doubt I will be able to make the tank vacuum-tight, without the help of epoxy. The big difference for me is confidence. I am confident my next weld will be good. Even if the penetration sucks, I am confident I can build up a beautiful fillet to create structural strength over multiple passes. I am going to experiment with 6011 some more this weekend, making a steel- working tool. I will use 6011 for the root passes and not worry if it is a bit bumpy. Then I will use some 7018 to smooth it all out and make it look pro, and be stronger than the steel I am working on. I have no doubt, I would use 7018 as the finish rod on everything on the inside and everything from the deck-level up on the outside of an orgami. On the parts normally in contact with seawater, that I want to be fair, I would use a lot of 60-something, and a grinder. I am pretty sure I would have to invest in a nice DC welding machine however to increase the quality of my 60-something welds. 7018 is definitely worth a $15 experiment for 5 pounds. Matt ** Yes, I read what Brent wrote about epoxy and pinholes, and this is good and very re-assuring, but if there are a lot fewer holes from the start, it feels better to me. Also, my 6011 holes are invariably filled with slag, and I am not sure how to get it out of really small holes (other than inventing something really tedious), or how the epoxy will get in. If I were to grind out the pinhole, I would make a huge hole where I had a small gap to fill before I started welding. That would be going backwards. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kingubito@... > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:41:09 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best > choice but here's my thinking > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. > Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at > my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a > particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or > 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the > 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really > missing out here? > I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat > welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? > > ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too > far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. > > Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat > maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people > think? > > cheers > > Anthony > > > > > > On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by > > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > Matt > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. > > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. > > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn�t seal very well. The slag > > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That > > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the > > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the > > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 > > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about > > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at > > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its > > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily > > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is > > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8� out of position. > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > > position using 7/32� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6� pipe with welded 3/4� > > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > > did that. When I told him he said �Okay do it everywhere!'� and we wound up > > with a whole lot more work. > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > > to use. > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the > > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using > > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more > > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to > > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier > > to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro > > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, > > just to make the job easier. > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > > with 7018. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26176|26151|2011-07-08 11:21:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Drives and Ben's Fabrications|On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 07:54:35PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Relax and lighten up you two.It takes two to tango, altho you two do > make entertaining dance partners, for those of us with a sense of > humour. Right-oh. As I've said, I've got Shane kill-filed, so I don't normally even see anything he posts. From here forward, I plan on ignoring him completely, even when someone cites his craziness. 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| 26177|26177|2011-07-08 12:38:59|wild_explorer|DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Looking back to E-motor discussion, I have noticed that most important part of boat propulsion system is missing - PROPELLER. Which supposed to be first things to talk about. As I understand, doing manual estimates of boat propulsion system, the order is as follow (or close to it): - estimate max/acceptable boat's hull speed (based on LWL) - estimate boat drag: resistance of the boat's hull (based on displacement & LWL), plus windage of the structures. - estimate propeller's thrust - estimate OPTIMAL diameter/pitch of prop, RPMs and shaft power - estimate engine/motor power - find proper combination of engine/motor & gearbox to match the prop. Brent's book has some information about DIY propeller, but not propeller specs. DIY propeller will be "less than perfect", but very helpful addition to DIY origamiboat concept. It may even end up to be better than "as-close-as-you-can-find-nearby" prop. Some constrains: - sailboat requires different prop than power boat. - size limit because of skeg's aperture (16-18 inches???) - number of blades (2-3-4???). Probably 2 is better choice??? - easy fabrication P.S. I know, most people get the engine and transmission first and only than worry about propeller... At least, if you have optimal prop, you can start looking for right motor/gearbox combination for Brent's 36 & 40 footer.| 26178|26177|2011-07-08 13:26:08|Aaron|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Jim it looks like you are switching from electric to ICE motors while looking at prop size. From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 8:38 AM Subject: [origamiboats] DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat   Looking back to E-motor discussion, I have noticed that most important part of boat propulsion system is missing - PROPELLER. Which supposed to be first things to talk about. As I understand, doing manual estimates of boat propulsion system, the order is as follow (or close to it): - estimate max/acceptable boat's hull speed (based on LWL) - estimate boat drag: resistance of the boat's hull (based on displacement & LWL), plus windage of the structures. - estimate propeller's thrust - estimate OPTIMAL diameter/pitch of prop, RPMs and shaft power - estimate engine/motor power - find proper combination of engine/motor & gearbox to match the prop. Brent's book has some information about DIY propeller, but not propeller specs. DIY propeller will be "less than perfect", but very helpful addition to DIY origamiboat concept. It may even end up to be better than "as-close-as-you-can-find-nearby" prop. Some constrains: - sailboat requires different prop than power boat. - size limit because of skeg's aperture (16-18 inches???) - number of blades (2-3-4???). Probably 2 is better choice??? - easy fabrication P.S. I know, most people get the engine and transmission first and only than worry about propeller... At least, if you have optimal prop, you can start looking for right motor/gearbox combination for Brent's 36 & 40 footer. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26179|26177|2011-07-08 14:00:35|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Type of the engine/motor is not important here. Optimal propeller would be the same for a given boat (in our case Brent's 36 & 40 footer). So, it need to come up with 2 optimal propellers (1 for 36 footer, 1 for 40 footer). Because it is DIY, we can skip all "latest-and-greatest-high-tech" about boat propellers. Material - probably SS ??? Someone can fit diesel or electric motor to it. If someone already have motor/engine/gearbox - it would be different story (how to find best propeller for it) and should be discussed separately in another topic. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Jim it looks like you are switching from electric to ICE motors while looking at prop size. > | 26180|26177|2011-07-08 15:36:15|Aaron|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|So if 20" propeller will be optimal for a 36 then what size diesel would it take to turn it compared to an electric. As an example you may find it would take a 75 hp diesel to turn the 20" prop compaired to a 12 hp electric motor. remember turning larger propeller at lower rpm is the key to effecincy where a diesel must idle at 800 rpm to stay running when the gear is engaged or it may be over loaded and stall and the electric starts out at 0 rpm with full torque. Aaron From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat   Type of the engine/motor is not important here. Optimal propeller would be the same for a given boat (in our case Brent's 36 & 40 footer). So, it need to come up with 2 optimal propellers (1 for 36 footer, 1 for 40 footer). Because it is DIY, we can skip all "latest-and-greatest-high-tech" about boat propellers. Material - probably SS ??? Someone can fit diesel or electric motor to it. If someone already have motor/engine/gearbox - it would be different story (how to find best propeller for it) and should be discussed separately in another topic. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Jim it looks like you are switching from electric to ICE motors while looking at prop size. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26181|26177|2011-07-08 17:02:26|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Let's not to jump ahead... First, we need to match hull (drag) and propulsor (propeller), and determine how much delivered thrust we need. Criteria. I think that the criteria "most efficiency at cruise speed (not MAX speed)" will be acceptable for a sailboat. If max speed 0.5 kn more than cruise speed, but require double power, it is not worth of effort to go for MAX speed. Propeller. What type of propeller is easier to make? Or what propeller is more suitable for a sailboat? Biggest fixed propeller may not be the best candidate for it... That a big task on its own.| 26182|26171|2011-07-08 18:01:29|brentswain38|Re: Coiling the anchor wire/rode/chain on to Brent's anchor winch.|Most people put the inner forestay on a pelican hook, and remove it when cruising near shore, and when anchoring . They only set it up when well clear of land, as sailing as a sloop is much easier when short tacking. The mooring bit doesn't get in the way, in any way, and can be used to some extent as a level wind to direct the rode to one end of the drum , or the other. With the anchor winch well back from the roller, level winding it with your foot is easy. You could wind most of your rode up from the foredeck ,and leave a hollow in the middle, then wind the rest up from your wheelhouse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I'm about to install the forward mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the tang for the inner forestay, and I started to think about how Brent's anchor winch works. > > I've never used one of Brent's anchor winches, or anything like it, and I'm wondering how the anchor wire/rode/chain is spread evenly across its drum as the anchor is hauled in. How do you stop it all bunching up on one side of the drum (and maybe becoming tangled and jammed)? > > I think I remember one of Brent's posts in which he said he simply used his foot to move the rode, to spread it evenly across the drum, as it was wound in on the winch drum. > > If the winch was powered (either electric or hydraulic), that means you would still have to stand next to the anchor winch as the anchor came up, instead of flicking a switch from the comfort of the wheelhouse? > > Most importantly: between the anchor winch and the bow roller is a mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the inner forestay. On the relatively short foredeck of the 26-footer, these are located right in front of the anchor winch. At the same time, the anchor winch drum goes right across the width of the cabin front. Would not the sampson post and the inner forestay (particularly the inner forestay) prevent the rode from being moved across the winch drum as the anchor was winched in (particularly if the rode was pretty taut)? > > In wondering about this I'm probably imagining a problem that doesn't exist; but any comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 26183|25669|2011-07-08 18:08:08|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Check out the posts on alternator welders. Running one off your main engine is a simple ,affordable solution.It will also run 120 volt power tools, like a grinder, etc. A 100 amp alternator will burn 1/8th inch rod, when new , but finding a 135 amp alternator would be better. No problems with 2.5mm rods. Any welding rod can be dragged, for an easy start. No point in going to a lot of trouble and expense to get a 70,000 PSI weld on 60,000 PSI material. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thomson wrote: > > This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best > choice but here's my thinking > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. > Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at > my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a > particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or > 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the > 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really > missing out here? > I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat > welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? > > ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too > far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. > > Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat > maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people > think? > > cheers > > Anthony > > > > > > On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by > > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > Matt > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. > > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. > > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn't seal very well. The slag > > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That > > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the > > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the > > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 > > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about > > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at > > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its > > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily > > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is > > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8" out of position. > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > > position using 7/32" rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6" pipe with welded 3/4" > > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > > did that. When I told him he said "Okay do it everywhere!'" and we wound up > > with a whole lot more work. > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > > to use. > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the > > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using > > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more > > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to > > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier > > to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro > > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, > > just to make the job easier. > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > > with 7018. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26184|25669|2011-07-08 18:11:13|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|I remember one fabricating shop insisting I use 7018 with no rod oven, The inside of the welds were full of bubbles , like an Aero bar, but they were happy with them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Anthony Wrote: > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > > ton. > > I do not use a rod oven. I have considered building one, but have not gotten > around to it. I keep my rods indoors in a dry place, in a completely sealed box, > take out 10-20 rods at a time in a few seconds, and re-seal the box, and use those > 10-20 immediately, and use the entire box over the course of a week. If I were > doing a job as big as an orgami, I have no doubt, my rods would never get a chance > to absorb moisture. I would just buy another 10 lbs as often as I buy bread. > > A pro welder told me that if one does not use a rod oven, and 7018 absorbs moisture, > it essentially becomes 7014, which is not a bad rod. He also said, when the rod is > used, the heating of the rod shank, as current is flowing to the tip, heats the rod and > drives off water. He indicated, the problems arise near the beginning of the weld, > when the rod has not been hot for very long. I can say, I have witnessed some > rods giving a wisp of smoke along their length as I use them. > > I am guessing that 80 ocv means 80 open circuit volts. All I can say is, I am using > E7018 AC on a 250 Amp Airco farmer's air-cooled buzz-box type welder that might > weigh 80 pounds, and it works great. My Dad got me the welder at a garage sale > for $100 close to 20 years ago. I am using Lincoln rods right now. I cannot > remember the other brands I have used. > > >I'm told however, that the 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged > >for perfect welds. Am I really missing out here? > > I burned probably 40-60 lbs of 6011/6013 over the years, and have never been > confident that my next weld would be good enough to be water tight.** Then I > tried 7018 (AC, 4mm, close to 200 Amps) and created a beautiful weld, with the > first rod, and every rod after. I will always use 7018 for the finish pass, even if I > get better at using 6011. I am 100% confident I can make water-tight welds > now. My next sealed project will be to weld up a vacuum tank to use as a buffer > between my pump and my fibreglass layup, so I do not get epoxy in my pump if > something unusual happens. I have no doubt I will be able to make the tank > vacuum-tight, without the help of epoxy. > > The big difference for me is confidence. I am confident my next weld will be good. > Even if the penetration sucks, I am confident I can build up a beautiful fillet to create > structural strength over multiple passes. > > I am going to experiment with 6011 some more this weekend, making a steel- > working tool. I will use 6011 for the root passes and not worry if it is a bit bumpy. > Then I will use some 7018 to smooth it all out and make it look pro, and be > stronger than the steel I am working on. > I have no doubt, I would use 7018 as the finish rod on everything on the inside and > everything from the deck-level up on the outside of an orgami. On the parts normally > in contact with seawater, that I want to be fair, I would use a lot of 60-something, > and a grinder. I am pretty sure I would have to invest in a nice DC welding machine > however to increase the quality of my 60-something welds. > > 7018 is definitely worth a $15 experiment for 5 pounds. > > Matt > > ** Yes, I read what Brent wrote about epoxy and pinholes, and this is good and > very re-assuring, but if there are a lot fewer holes from the start, it feels > better to me. Also, my 6011 holes are invariably filled with slag, and I am not > sure how to get it out of really small holes (other than inventing something > really tedious), or how the epoxy will get in. If I were to grind out the pinhole, I > would make a huge hole where I had a small gap to fill before I started welding. > That would be going backwards. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: kingubito@... > > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:41:09 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best > > choice but here's my thinking > > > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in > > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > > ton. > > Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at > > my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a > > particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or > > 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the > > 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really > > missing out here? > > I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat > > welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? > > > > ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too > > far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. > > > > Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat > > maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people > > think? > > > > cheers > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by > > > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > > > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. > > > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. > > > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn't seal very well. The slag > > > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That > > > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the > > > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the > > > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > > > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 > > > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about > > > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at > > > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its > > > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily > > > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is > > > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8" out of position. > > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > > > position using 7/32" rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > > > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > > > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6" pipe with welded 3/4" > > > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > > > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > > > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > > > did that. When I told him he said "Okay do it everywhere!'" and we wound up > > > with a whole lot more work. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > > > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > > > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > > > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > > > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > > > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > > > to use. > > > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the > > > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using > > > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > > > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more > > > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to > > > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier > > > to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > > > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > > > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > > > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > > > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > > > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > > > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > > > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > > > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro > > > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, > > > just to make the job easier. > > > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > > > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > > > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > > > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > > > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > > > with 7018. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26185|25669|2011-07-08 23:19:04|ursus_222|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat dissipates unless it is being heat treated. Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least amount of effort and waste. Cheers Vic --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Matt, > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8” are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: M.J. Malone > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26186|26177|2011-07-09 00:59:04|Darren Bos|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Wild, I think Aaron is right. Especially at slow speeds (sailboat speeds), the bigger prop is more efficient. So big in fact, that the "optimum" prop won't fit in a standard aperture or be turned by a reasonably sized diesel engine. This is why I thought electric motors (one in each keel of a twin keeler) with large folding props would be an interesting experiment. You can calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it will be too big to fit in the given aperture and as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to power it. As a result, the calculations are often run from the other direction. How many HP does it take to get the boat to hullspeed (with a fudge factor for the inefficiency of smaller props), then go with the largest diameter that will fit (maintaining a tip clearance of at least 15% of the propeller diameter), then select a pitch that doesn't overload the engine. Also, it should be pointed out that the optimum prop can often not be selected by calculation alone. Even modern cargo ships with extensive computer modelling can need to go back for a propeller refit after sea trials. Water flow/disturbance into the prop, obstructions (rudders) behind the prop all effect efficiency and are not readily amenable to calculation. If you want to give the calcs a go, Dave Gerr has an excellent book on props and parts of it are available on Google Books. As to making props, I'd be interested to hear what folks have done. I've thought that for a home-built option, carbon fiber would be a great way to go. Vacuum bagging on moulds would be one of the few ways I could produce a prop where all the blades were identical, and if you go for a folding design you can make all the blades from one mould so every blade is near identical. Darren At 02:02 PM 08/07/2011, you wrote: > > >Let's not to jump ahead... First, we need to >match hull (drag) and propulsor (propeller), and >determine how much delivered thrust we need. > >Criteria. I think that the criteria "most >efficiency at cruise speed (not MAX speed)" will >be acceptable for a sailboat. If max speed 0.5 >kn more than cruise speed, but require double >power, it is not worth of effort to go for MAX speed. > >Propeller. What type of propeller is easier to >make? Or what propeller is more suitable for a >sailboat? Biggest fixed propeller may not be the best candidate for it... > >That a big task on its own. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26187|25669|2011-07-09 05:26:01|Jonathan Stevens|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|I worked for a guy many years ago who just put the tip of the new rod on the workpiece or bench for a moment. When the rod was steaming nicely he would break the contact and then weld. I tend to do the same, my workshop tending towards the damp. You do need a welder that has a reasonable duty cycle to get away with it though. Jonathan. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26188|26177|2011-07-09 11:57:37|Matt Malone|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Diesel and a larger prop turning at lower RPM would need a higher ratio gearbox. There is so much engineering that goes into props power requirements at a certain RPM, and engine power output at a certain RPM. If you were certain of each, then one could have a good guess of the ratio for gearing, however, remember, props require more power as they age (gather buildups) and engines produce less power as they age, so, keep that in mind. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: akenai@... Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:36:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat So if 20" propeller will be optimal for a 36 then what size diesel would it take to turn it compared to an electric. As an example you may find it would take a 75 hp diesel to turn the 20" prop compaired to a 12 hp electric motor. remember turning larger propeller at lower rpm is the key to effecincy where a diesel must idle at 800 rpm to stay running when the gear is engaged or it may be over loaded and stall and the electric starts out at 0 rpm with full torque. Aaron From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat Type of the engine/motor is not important here. Optimal propeller would be the same for a given boat (in our case Brent's 36 & 40 footer). So, it need to come up with 2 optimal propellers (1 for 36 footer, 1 for 40 footer). Because it is DIY, we can skip all "latest-and-greatest-high-tech" about boat propellers. Material - probably SS ??? Someone can fit diesel or electric motor to it. If someone already have motor/engine/gearbox - it would be different story (how to find best propeller for it) and should be discussed separately in another topic. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Jim it looks like you are switching from electric to ICE motors while looking at prop size. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26189|25669|2011-07-09 12:18:51|Matt Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods|Yes, welding boilers and pipelines, and, I would say masts too, would be something I would just hire a pro welder for, let him use his rod. A lot of force is concentrated on every inch of the weld in those cases. For a hull, one can always make an area thicker, or add more framing or webs on the inside to strengthen it. The 7018 aero-bar effect -- I have seen it from time to time. The way that I do not allow rod to sit around open really limits that, but, even a day, open, is enough to spoil it. I guess I will weld up a rod oven. I had intended to go to an appliance parts supplier and get a 120V or 240V long thin loop heater. Sort of like the upper right one in this photo: http://www.springfield-wire.com/custom/images/Category/SW_Photo.png and get a capillary high temperature oven thermostat sort of like this: http://www.manufacturer.com/cimages/product/www.alibaba.com/0529/i/Capillary_Thermostat.jpg Connect them up and wrap the oven in a thick layer of rock wool insulation and use some large square furnace duct as the outside case, screwed at the edges. With lots of insulation it would use little electricity when it is on. I could make it big enough to hold all my rod, and it would cost less than a commercial 5 lb oven. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ursus_222@... Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 03:19:04 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat dissipates unless it is being heat treated. Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least amount of effort and waste. Cheers Vic --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Matt, > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8â€� are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: M.J. Malone > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8â€� out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32â€� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6â€� pipe with welded 3/4â€� pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'â€� and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26190|25669|2011-07-09 13:34:16|Matt Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods|I forgot to mention the over-temperature safe devices: The high limit temperature switch that might look something like this: http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00004039/01215720.jpg and a thermal fuse that might look like this: http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00001925/00579873.jpg If I were ever going to use the oven in a structure, as opposed to outside, as a non-UL, non-CSA appliance, I might have a few of these. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods Yes, welding boilers and pipelines, and, I would say masts too, would be something I would just hire a pro welder for, let him use his rod. A lot of force is concentrated on every inch of the weld in those cases. For a hull, one can always make an area thicker, or add more framing or webs on the inside to strengthen it. The 7018 aero-bar effect -- I have seen it from time to time. The way that I do not allow rod to sit around open really limits that, but, even a day, open, is enough to spoil it. I guess I will weld up a rod oven. I had intended to go to an appliance parts supplier and get a 120V or 240V long thin loop heater. Sort of like the upper right one in this photo: http://www.springfield-wire.com/custom/images/Category/SW_Photo.png and get a capillary high temperature oven thermostat sort of like this: http://www.manufacturer.com/cimages/product/www.alibaba.com/0529/i/Capillary_Thermostat.jpg Connect them up and wrap the oven in a thick layer of rock wool insulation and use some large square furnace duct as the outside case, screwed at the edges. With lots of insulation it would use little electricity when it is on. I could make it big enough to hold all my rod, and it would cost less than a commercial 5 lb oven. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ursus_222@... Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 03:19:04 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat dissipates unless it is being heat treated. Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least amount of effort and waste. Cheers Vic --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Matt, > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8â€� are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: M.J. Malone > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8â€� out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32â€� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6â€� pipe with welded 3/4â€� pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'â€� and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26191|25669|2011-07-09 13:44:27|Tom Mann|Re: 7018 welding Rods|I would not keep all your rods in the oven 6010 6011 need a little moisture, in an oven they will get to dry and not weld as good Tom On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > I forgot to mention the over-temperature safe devices: > > The high limit temperature switch that might look something like this: > > http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00004039/01215720.jpg > > and a thermal fuse that might look like this: > > http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00001925/00579873.jpg > > If I were ever going to use the oven in a structure, as opposed to outside, > as a non-UL, non-CSA appliance, I might have a few of these. > > Matt > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, welding boilers and pipelines, and, I would say masts too, would be > something I would just hire a > > > pro welder for, let him use his rod. A lot of force is concentrated on > every inch of the weld in those > > > cases. For a hull, one can always make an area thicker, or add more > framing or webs on the inside > > > to strengthen it. > > > > > > The 7018 aero-bar effect -- I have seen it from time to time. The way that > I do not allow rod to sit > > > around open really limits that, but, even a day, open, is enough to spoil > it. > > > > > > I guess I will weld up a rod oven. I had intended to go to an appliance > parts supplier and get a > > > 120V or 240V long thin loop heater. Sort of like the upper right one in > this photo: > > > > > > http://www.springfield-wire.com/custom/images/Category/SW_Photo.png > > > > > > and get a capillary high temperature oven thermostat sort of like this: > > > > > > > http://www.manufacturer.com/cimages/product/www.alibaba.com/0529/i/Capillary_Thermostat.jpg > > > > > > Connect them up and wrap the oven in a thick layer of rock wool insulation > and use some large square > > > furnace duct as the outside case, screwed at the edges. With lots of > insulation it would use little > > > electricity when it is on. I could make it big enough to hold all my rod, > and it would cost less than a > > > commercial 5 lb oven. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: ursus_222@... > > > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 03:19:04 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more > skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my > opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a > Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture > free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down > hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand > but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you > don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in > western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and > cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and > practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe > depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 > 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so > no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out > heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat > dissipates unless it is being heat treated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having > worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was > done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would > recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was > building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on > what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least > amount of effort and waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Vic > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8â€� are very difficult to weld > out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also > it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not > downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of > penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of > the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: M.J. Malone > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes > by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the > cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very > well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The > slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. > That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle > at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that > defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It > really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old > refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a > portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you > lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were > beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that > it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used > in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to > use 1/8â€� out of position. > > > > > > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > position using 7/32â€� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6â€� pipe with welded 3/4â€� > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'â€� and we wound > up with a whole lot more work. > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > > > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > to use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not > the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, > using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using > 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are > more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy > to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it > easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some > pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the > field, just to make the job easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > with 7018. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > > > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26192|25669|2011-07-09 16:28:45|Matt Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods|Learn something new every day. Thanks Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: tazmannm@... Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:17 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods I would not keep all your rods in the oven 6010 6011 need a little moisture, in an oven they will get to dry and not weld as good Tom On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > I forgot to mention the over-temperature safe devices: > > The high limit temperature switch that might look something like this: > > http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00004039/01215720.jpg > > and a thermal fuse that might look like this: > > http://www.rcappliancepartsimages.com/dbImages/00001925/00579873.jpg > > If I were ever going to use the oven in a structure, as opposed to outside, > as a non-UL, non-CSA appliance, I might have a few of these. > > Matt > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, welding boilers and pipelines, and, I would say masts too, would be > something I would just hire a > > > pro welder for, let him use his rod. A lot of force is concentrated on > every inch of the weld in those > > > cases. For a hull, one can always make an area thicker, or add more > framing or webs on the inside > > > to strengthen it. > > > > > > The 7018 aero-bar effect -- I have seen it from time to time. The way that > I do not allow rod to sit > > > around open really limits that, but, even a day, open, is enough to spoil > it. > > > > > > I guess I will weld up a rod oven. I had intended to go to an appliance > parts supplier and get a > > > 120V or 240V long thin loop heater. Sort of like the upper right one in > this photo: > > > > > > http://www.springfield-wire.com/custom/images/Category/SW_Photo.png > > > > > > and get a capillary high temperature oven thermostat sort of like this: > > > > > > > http://www.manufacturer.com/cimages/product/www.alibaba.com/0529/i/Capillary_Thermostat.jpg > > > > > > Connect them up and wrap the oven in a thick layer of rock wool insulation > and use some large square > > > furnace duct as the outside case, screwed at the edges. With lots of > insulation it would use little > > > electricity when it is on. I could make it big enough to hold all my rod, > and it would cost less than a > > > commercial 5 lb oven. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: ursus_222@... > > > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 03:19:04 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more > skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my > opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a > Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture > free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down > hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand > but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you > don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in > western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and > cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. > > > > > > > > > > > > The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and > practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe > depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 > 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so > no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out > heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat > dissipates unless it is being heat treated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having > worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was > done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would > recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was > building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on > what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least > amount of effort and waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Vic > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8â€� are very difficult to weld > out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also > it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not > downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of > penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of > the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: M.J. Malone > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes > by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the > cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very > well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The > slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. > That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle > at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that > defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It > really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old > refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a > portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you > lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were > beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that > it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used > in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to > use 1/8â€� out of position. > > > > > > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > position using 7/32â€� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6â€� pipe with welded 3/4â€� > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'â€� and we wound > up with a whole lot more work. > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > > > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder > to use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not > the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, > using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using > 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are > more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy > to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it > easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some > pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the > field, just to make the job easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that > with 7018. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > > > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26193|26177|2011-07-09 17:48:17|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|The proper way is to calculate total drug of the hull FIRST and then to choose propulsion system. As you pointed out, usually it done from the other direction - which is much less useful. Knowing what thrust need to be delivered, you can choose ANY propulsion system you like (even rows). I see several problems at this time: - I still trying to get total drag for BS36 & BS40 as a start point. - We are talking about sailboat. Fixed prop may be not a very good solution (added drag). Most of the time sailboat use sails, additional drag does not help. May be folding prop is better solution, but where to find data for its calculation? It is possible to use data from fixed prop though. - If it was power boat, motoring all the time at the speed near MAX displacement hull speed, we could fit biggest prop which hull allows. Even for BS36, BS40 we still have limit for maximum propeller size about 16-18". So we can find best prop for that size range. - Usually books & software use data for B-series propellers (big ships), but propellers most people will find (small & medium crafts) are usually Gawn series (easier to make). They are different and perform differently. Data is for open water, need to adjust it for given hull. We can go different way and ask BrentsBoat owners willing to record performance of their propulsion systems and get hull drag (thrust need to be delivered). It would be real-world data. One problem here - need to know current displacement of the boat (which could be different than design displacement) before trial. Windage might be added later. What need to know to do backward calculation from trial data: - Engine model, power/torque chart - Gear-box ratio - Prop specs (diameter, pitch, # of blades, etc) - Speed @ RPM data, let say in 250 or 500 RPM step (calm conditions, no current) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Wild, > > You can > calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the > optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it > will be too big to fit in the given aperture and > as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than > average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to > power it. As a result, the calculations are > often run from the other direction. | 26194|25669|2011-07-09 17:53:23|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|6010 is a DC rod which doesn't like AC. 6011 is good for both DC and AC. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "ursus_222" wrote: > > I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. > > The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat dissipates unless it is being heat treated. > > Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least amount of effort and waste. > > Cheers > > Vic > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > Matt, > > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8” are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > From: M.J. Malone > > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > Matt > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26195|25669|2011-07-09 17:57:16|brentswain38|Re: 7018 welding Rods|Using a 2 to 1 scarf on mast joints, and making the tang welds much longer than the cross section, makes the welds far less critical on a mast. If you do that, you needen't hesitate to do your own welding on a mast. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Yes, welding boilers and pipelines, and, I would say masts too, would be something I would just hire a > pro welder for, let him use his rod. A lot of force is concentrated on every inch of the weld in those > cases. For a hull, one can always make an area thicker, or add more framing or webs on the inside > to strengthen it. > > The 7018 aero-bar effect -- I have seen it from time to time. The way that I do not allow rod to sit > around open really limits that, but, even a day, open, is enough to spoil it. > > I guess I will weld up a rod oven. I had intended to go to an appliance parts supplier and get a > 120V or 240V long thin loop heater. Sort of like the upper right one in this photo: > > http://www.springfield-wire.com/custom/images/Category/SW_Photo.png > > and get a capillary high temperature oven thermostat sort of like this: > > http://www.manufacturer.com/cimages/product/www.alibaba.com/0529/i/Capillary_Thermostat.jpg > > Connect them up and wrap the oven in a thick layer of rock wool insulation and use some large square > furnace duct as the outside case, screwed at the edges. With lots of insulation it would use little > electricity when it is on. I could make it big enough to hold all my rod, and it would cost less than a > commercial 5 lb oven. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ursus_222@... > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 03:19:04 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I work as a Pressure Welder, 7018 is a good rod but it takes more skill and prep then 6010 or 6011 which are a lot more forgiving in my opinion, 18 should be kept in a oven if you are caught using cold 18 in a Boiler they will fire you so QC is quite serious about keeping it moisture free. We do an actual down hand test with 7018-1 in Alberta so welding down hand is a recognized procedure and the coupons bend as well as the up hand but I agree that you get more penetration going uphill but be careful you don't get inclusions if you long arc. Pressure tickets for Carbon pipe in western Canada are done with 6010 (f3) and 7018 (f4) for the hot fill and cap except B.C. which allows 6010 on the hot. > > > > The larger the electrode the more skill required which is training and practice but it is done all the time, if you are welding a 48" pipe depending on the schedule of course you could be using 5/32 or even 3/16 7018 since they may not allow you to go wider then 3 rod widths per pass so no wider then a 3/8 weave with 1/8 rod. It would take forever to weld out heavy wall with 1/8 and the heavier the material the quicker the heat dissipates unless it is being heat treated. > > > > Anyway I thought I would throw in my ten cents worth on the welding, having worked in the shipyards as a welder in the 70s when most of the welding was done with 6011 I tend to agree with Brent that 6010 is a good rod and would recommend it for most people who do not fit or weld for a living, if I was building my own boat I would probably use 7018, 6024 and 6010 depending on what was required to give me the best quality and speed with the least amount of effort and waste. > > > > Cheers > > > > Vic > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > Matt, > > > What I meant was that rods larger than 1/8� are very difficult to weld out of position because you have a large puddle that you must control. Also it is important that if you weld vertical that you weld upwards, not downwards. Upward welds are very strong because you get lots of penetration. Welding down is very fast because you have to stay ahead of the puddle. So you get almost no penetration. > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > From: M.J. Malone > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:41 PM > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes by itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the cover. 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very well. The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at the end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats the low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a 100 watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held about 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them at about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on its own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that is an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8� out of position. > > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of position using 7/32� rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6� pipe with welded 3/4� pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and I took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who did that. When I told him he said â€Å"Okay do it everywhere!'� and we wound up with a whole lot more work. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot harder to use. > > > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not the same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it easier to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds on a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have never had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me that one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be forced to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the field, just to make the job easier. > > > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat orientation made it easier. > > > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over that with 7018. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26196|26196|2011-07-09 18:05:08|brentswain38|Giving up?|I've just read of another builder, who, having the option of origami , decided to go for a fully framed 37 footer, and, as is so often the case, has his unfinished project for sale. Maybe origami would have meant that he would have been far enough along by now to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and been able to get her to a useable state before running out of steam, with the same amount of work, or would have at least had somthing more saleable.| 26197|26177|2011-07-09 19:22:10|j|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|I agree with above sentiments.. the right prop is the key to efficiency under power, whatever that power might be. If the prop turns at the right speed it doesn't care what is being used to drive it. I had a feathering Kiwi prop, carbon fibre, but I was never happy with it, under diesel or electric ... I was always curious whether the prop should be 2 bladed or 3 ... a friend tried a very old 2 bladed prop and found it very good at low RPM (it had slightly bigger diameter) ... this 2 bladed could be set so that the blades were in line with the skeg for minimal drag. But these 2 baded types are hard to find, but I think would be easier to make and balance. Any thoughts? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Wild, > > I think Aaron is right. Especially at slow > speeds (sailboat speeds), the bigger prop is more > efficient. So big in fact, that the "optimum" > prop won't fit in a standard aperture or be > turned by a reasonably sized diesel engine. This > is why I thought electric motors (one in each > keel of a twin keeler) with large folding props > would be an interesting experiment. You can > calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the > optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it > will be too big to fit in the given aperture and > as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than > average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to > power it. As a result, the calculations are > often run from the other direction. How many HP > does it take to get the boat to hullspeed (with a > fudge factor for the inefficiency of smaller > props), then go with the largest diameter that > will fit (maintaining a tip clearance of at least > 15% of the propeller diameter), then select a > pitch that doesn't overload the engine. Also, it > should be pointed out that the optimum prop can > often not be selected by calculation alone. Even > modern cargo ships with extensive computer > modelling can need to go back for a propeller > refit after sea trials. Water flow/disturbance > into the prop, obstructions (rudders) behind the > prop all effect efficiency and are not readily > amenable to calculation. If you want to give the > calcs a go, Dave Gerr has an excellent book on > props and parts of it are available on Google Books. > > As to making props, I'd be interested to hear > what folks have done. I've thought that for a > home-built option, carbon fiber would be a great > way to go. Vacuum bagging on moulds would be one > of the few ways I could produce a prop where all > the blades were identical, and if you go for a > folding design you can make all the blades from > one mould so every blade is near identical. > > Darren > > At 02:02 PM 08/07/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >Let's not to jump ahead... First, we need to > >match hull (drag) and propulsor (propeller), and > >determine how much delivered thrust we need. > > > >Criteria. I think that the criteria "most > >efficiency at cruise speed (not MAX speed)" will > >be acceptable for a sailboat. If max speed 0.5 > >kn more than cruise speed, but require double > >power, it is not worth of effort to go for MAX speed. > > > >Propeller. What type of propeller is easier to > >make? Or what propeller is more suitable for a > >sailboat? Biggest fixed propeller may not be the best candidate for it... > > > >That a big task on its own. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26198|26171|2011-07-10 05:22:53|Kim|Re: Coiling the anchor wire/rode/chain on to Brent's anchor winch.|Many thanks for the details, Brent. I didn't know that the inner forestay was designed to be easily removable; but it makes a lot of sense to do it that way, and there should be no problems operating the anchor winch with it not there. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Most people put the inner forestay on a pelican hook, and remove it when cruising near shore, and when anchoring . They only set it up when well clear of land, as sailing as a sloop is much easier when short tacking. > The mooring bit doesn't get in the way, in any way, and can be used to some extent as a level wind to direct the rode to one end of the drum , or the other. > With the anchor winch well back from the roller, level winding it with your foot is easy. You could wind most of your rode up from the foredeck ,and leave a hollow in the middle, then wind the rest up from your wheelhouse. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I'm about to install the forward mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the tang for the inner forestay, and I started to think about how Brent's anchor winch works. > > > > I've never used one of Brent's anchor winches, or anything like it, and I'm wondering how the anchor wire/rode/chain is spread evenly across its drum as the anchor is hauled in. How do you stop it all bunching up on one side of the drum (and maybe becoming tangled and jammed)? > > > > I think I remember one of Brent's posts in which he said he simply used his foot to move the rode, to spread it evenly across the drum, as it was wound in on the winch drum. > > > > If the winch was powered (either electric or hydraulic), that means you would still have to stand next to the anchor winch as the anchor came up, instead of flicking a switch from the comfort of the wheelhouse? > > > > Most importantly: between the anchor winch and the bow roller is a mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the inner forestay. On the relatively short foredeck of the 26-footer, these are located right in front of the anchor winch. At the same time, the anchor winch drum goes right across the width of the cabin front. Would not the sampson post and the inner forestay (particularly the inner forestay) prevent the rode from being moved across the winch drum as the anchor was winched in (particularly if the rode was pretty taut)? > > > > In wondering about this I'm probably imagining a problem that doesn't exist; but any comments would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 26199|26171|2011-07-10 05:28:14|Kim|Re: A bottle of Champane for Kim|Thanks John! But I'm a long way from launching, so I don't need the champagne just yet! :-) I'm in Brisbane, Australia. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Kim where are you doing your work? I would like to leave you a bottle of Champagne to celebrate your progress. > > John > > --- On Fri, 7/8/11, Kim wrote: > > > From: Kim > > Subject: [origamiboats] Coiling the anchor wire/rode/chain on to Brent's anchor winch. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 4:24 AM > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I'm about to install the forward mooring-bitt/sampson post, > > and the tang for the inner forestay, and I started to think > > about how Brent's anchor winch works. > > > > I've never used one of Brent's anchor winches, or anything > > like it, and I'm wondering how the anchor wire/rode/chain is > > spread evenly across its drum as the anchor is hauled in. > > How do you stop it all bunching up on one side of the drum > > (and maybe becoming tangled and jammed)? > > > > I think I remember one of Brent's posts in which he said he > > simply used his foot to move the rode, to spread it evenly > > across the drum, as it was wound in on the winch drum. > > > > If the winch was powered (either electric or hydraulic), > > that means you would still have to stand next to the anchor > > winch as the anchor came up, instead of flicking a switch > > from the comfort of the wheelhouse? > > > > Most importantly: between the anchor winch and the bow > > roller is a mooring-bitt/sampson post, and the inner > > forestay. On the relatively short foredeck of the 26-footer, > > these are located right in front of the anchor winch. At the > > same time, the anchor winch drum goes right across the width > > of the cabin front. Would not the sampson post and the inner > > forestay (particularly the inner forestay) prevent the rode > > from being moved across the winch drum as the anchor was > > winched in (particularly if the rode was pretty taut)? > > > > In wondering about this I'm probably imagining a problem > > that doesn't exist; but any comments would be greatly > > appreciated. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 26200|26177|2011-07-10 17:21:53|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|BS36, LWL=30ft, max speed 7.34 kn Note: Resistance for "Real-life" displacement ~ 22400 Lbs ( 10 LT, 11.2 St, 10.16 MT) (compare to designed hull's displacement 17500 Lbs ~ +28% difference), resistance estimation difference ~ +10% R_T is underwater Hull resistance with appendages (no air resistance included). Based on tank tests data for sailboats. In theory, hull's resistance is proportional to boat speed squared (in table below additional hull's resistances are taken into an account) Speed | Speed | Fr | R_T | Force [kn] | [m/s] | [-] | [N] | needed 3.00 | 1.54 | 0.161 | 179.4 | ~ 0.18 kN 3.50 | 1.80 | 0.188 | 249.0 | ~ 0.25 kN 4.00 | 2.06 | 0.215 | 335.7 | ~ 0.34 kN 4.50 | 2.32 | 0.241 | 442.3 | ~ 0.45 kN 5.00 | 2.57 | 0.268 | 578.3 | ~ 0.6 kN 5.50 | 2.83 | 0.295 | 744.7 | ~ 0.75 kN 6.00 | 3.09 | 0.322 | 934.8 | ~ 0.95 kN 6.50 | 3.34 | 0.349 | 1253.0 | ~ 1.3 kN 7.00 | 3.60 | 0.376 | 1901.8 | ~ 1.9 kN 7.50 | 3.86 | 0.402 | 3047.3 | ~ 3.1 kN 8.00 | 4.12 | 0.429 | 4788.3 | ~ 4.8 kN From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. Power Effective Horsepower, EHP (Without Propeller Effects) Pe (US Horsepower) = Resistance_Lbs * Speed_knots / 326 Pe (Metric) = Resistance_Newtons * Speed_m_/_s /1,000= KW Speed | Speed |Power [kn] | [m/s] |[kW] 3.00 | 1.54 | ~ 0.3 kW 3.50 | 1.80 | ~ 0.5 kW 4.00 | 2.06 | ~ 0.7 kW 4.50 | 2.32 | ~ 1.1 kW 5.00 | 2.57 | ~ 1.6 kW 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78)| 26201|26177|2011-07-10 21:27:57|Gary H. Lucas|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|You guys do realize that if you optimize the propeller for powering that you will have good power boat and a poor SAILboat! All the drag from that optimum prop is going to be a terrible price to pay. Better less efficient lower drag prop turning at high RPMs in my book. Gary H. Lucas From: wild_explorer Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 5:21 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat BS36, LWL=30ft, max speed 7.34 kn Note: Resistance for "Real-life" displacement ~ 22400 Lbs ( 10 LT, 11.2 St, 10.16 MT) (compare to designed hull's displacement 17500 Lbs ~ +28% difference), resistance estimation difference ~ +10% R_T is underwater Hull resistance with appendages (no air resistance included). Based on tank tests data for sailboats. In theory, hull's resistance is proportional to boat speed squared (in table below additional hull's resistances are taken into an account) Speed | Speed | Fr | R_T | Force [kn] | [m/s] | [-] | [N] | needed 3.00 | 1.54 | 0.161 | 179.4 | ~ 0.18 kN 3.50 | 1.80 | 0.188 | 249.0 | ~ 0.25 kN 4.00 | 2.06 | 0.215 | 335.7 | ~ 0.34 kN 4.50 | 2.32 | 0.241 | 442.3 | ~ 0.45 kN 5.00 | 2.57 | 0.268 | 578.3 | ~ 0.6 kN 5.50 | 2.83 | 0.295 | 744.7 | ~ 0.75 kN 6.00 | 3.09 | 0.322 | 934.8 | ~ 0.95 kN 6.50 | 3.34 | 0.349 | 1253.0 | ~ 1.3 kN 7.00 | 3.60 | 0.376 | 1901.8 | ~ 1.9 kN 7.50 | 3.86 | 0.402 | 3047.3 | ~ 3.1 kN 8.00 | 4.12 | 0.429 | 4788.3 | ~ 4.8 kN From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. Power Effective Horsepower, EHP (Without Propeller Effects) Pe (US Horsepower) = Resistance_Lbs * Speed_knots / 326 Pe (Metric) = Resistance_Newtons * Speed_m_/_s /1,000= KW Speed | Speed |Power [kn] | [m/s] |[kW] 3.00 | 1.54 | ~ 0.3 kW 3.50 | 1.80 | ~ 0.5 kW 4.00 | 2.06 | ~ 0.7 kW 4.50 | 2.32 | ~ 1.1 kW 5.00 | 2.57 | ~ 1.6 kW 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78) Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26202|25669|2011-07-10 21:39:42|Gary H. Lucas|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Something else I should have mentioned. 70 series rods can NOT make stronger welds on mild steel which is typically only 50K to 60K tensile. In fact it will be more likely to crack under high loads. The reason is simple. Under stress steel stretches. If the weld is 70K and the base metal is 60K they stretch at different rates. The stress is highest right at the fusion interface, and the base is lower strength and fails first, not the weld. I saw this when I was a kid building minibikes at 11 years old. The pipe coming from the motor mount up to the front forks kept breaking. My welds didn't break, it always happened right above the weld. I would V out the break and re-weld it, and it break again above the new weld. At the time I welding with 7014, and didn't know about metal stress. I have brought this up before. In a past business we hot dip galvanized everything we built. We had huge numbers of weld failures on thousands of simple parts due to poor penetration on really great looking welds made with 0.035 Mig welding wire. All of our problems went away when we forced everyone to weld with 0.045" wire. You can have as similar problem welding with stick using too small a rod, or keeping the current too low. Everyone worries about strong welds on a boat hull. The reality of Origami is that a full penetration weld is just so incredibly strong that it is extremely unlikely it will fail as long as reasonable penetration has been achieved. Thin plated up boats have a much bigger problem, because the right amount of heat for full penetration can warp the hell out of thin plate. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Thomson Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 5:41 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best choice but here's my thinking I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which in the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a ton. Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that the 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really missing out here? I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for flat welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people think? cheers Anthony On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > ** > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes > by > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or my > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > Matt > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Matt, > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the > > cover. > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very > well. > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. That > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at > the > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats > the > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a > 100 > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held > about > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept them > at > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on > its > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that easily > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding that > is > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to be > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician and > I > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings and > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked who > did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound > up > with a whole lot more work. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Matt Malone > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started asking > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since then. > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch E7018 > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. All > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot > harder > to use. > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not > > the > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, using > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are more > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy to > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it > easier > to make nice finished welds. > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a bit > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal welds > on > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have > never > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me > that > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be > forced > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might easily > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > In summary: > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some pro > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the > field, > just to make the job easier. > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > orientation made it easier. > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a first > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over > that > with 7018. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ | 26203|25669|2011-07-10 21:42:57|Gary H. Lucas|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|Matt, 7018 can get wet in one day easily. Once it has been wet it often starts faking off the flux, then the weld quality really suffers. Keeping the rod dry is as simple as keeping it 10 to 20 degrees above ambient at all times. So a wood box with a small light bulb in it would do the job. A small metal cabinet with a light bulb will work too. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Matt Malone Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:18 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson Anthony Wrote: > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which > in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. I do not use a rod oven. I have considered building one, but have not gotten around to it. I keep my rods indoors in a dry place, in a completely sealed box, take out 10-20 rods at a time in a few seconds, and re-seal the box, and use those 10-20 immediately, and use the entire box over the course of a week. If I were doing a job as big as an orgami, I have no doubt, my rods would never get a chance to absorb moisture. I would just buy another 10 lbs as often as I buy bread. A pro welder told me that if one does not use a rod oven, and 7018 absorbs moisture, it essentially becomes 7014, which is not a bad rod. He also said, when the rod is used, the heating of the rod shank, as current is flowing to the tip, heats the rod and drives off water. He indicated, the problems arise near the beginning of the weld, when the rod has not been hot for very long. I can say, I have witnessed some rods giving a wisp of smoke along their length as I use them. I am guessing that 80 ocv means 80 open circuit volts. All I can say is, I am using E7018 AC on a 250 Amp Airco farmer's air-cooled buzz-box type welder that might weigh 80 pounds, and it works great. My Dad got me the welder at a garage sale for $100 close to 20 years ago. I am using Lincoln rods right now. I cannot remember the other brands I have used. >I'm told however, that the 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged >for perfect welds. Am I really missing out here? I burned probably 40-60 lbs of 6011/6013 over the years, and have never been confident that my next weld would be good enough to be water tight.** Then I tried 7018 (AC, 4mm, close to 200 Amps) and created a beautiful weld, with the first rod, and every rod after. I will always use 7018 for the finish pass, even if I get better at using 6011. I am 100% confident I can make water-tight welds now. My next sealed project will be to weld up a vacuum tank to use as a buffer between my pump and my fibreglass layup, so I do not get epoxy in my pump if something unusual happens. I have no doubt I will be able to make the tank vacuum-tight, without the help of epoxy. The big difference for me is confidence. I am confident my next weld will be good. Even if the penetration sucks, I am confident I can build up a beautiful fillet to create structural strength over multiple passes. I am going to experiment with 6011 some more this weekend, making a steel- working tool. I will use 6011 for the root passes and not worry if it is a bit bumpy. Then I will use some 7018 to smooth it all out and make it look pro, and be stronger than the steel I am working on. I have no doubt, I would use 7018 as the finish rod on everything on the inside and everything from the deck-level up on the outside of an orgami. On the parts normally in contact with seawater, that I want to be fair, I would use a lot of 60-something, and a grinder. I am pretty sure I would have to invest in a nice DC welding machine however to increase the quality of my 60-something welds. 7018 is definitely worth a $15 experiment for 5 pounds. Matt ** Yes, I read what Brent wrote about epoxy and pinholes, and this is good and very re-assuring, but if there are a lot fewer holes from the start, it feels better to me. Also, my 6011 holes are invariably filled with slag, and I am not sure how to get it out of really small holes (other than inventing something really tedious), or how the epoxy will get in. If I were to grind out the pinhole, I would make a huge hole where I had a small gap to fill before I started welding. That would be going backwards. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kingubito@... > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:41:09 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > This is an interesting thread for me. I'm not sure if I've made the best > choice but here's my thinking > > I've decided against using 7018s for several reasons. I don't want to have > to use a rod oven before I can weld and prefer to use relatively cheap and > easy to find welding equipment - 7018s need at least 80 ocv I think which > in > the UK means spending a lot or getting a big old oil cooled that weighs a > ton. > Also the difference between 60,000 or 70,000 PSI isn't that significant at > my level of welding, more important perhaps is being familiar with a > particular rod and being able to get ok welds? I'm mostly welding 1/8" or > 1/4" so use 2.5mm rods in 6013 /6011 combination. I'm told however, that > the > 7018 is a 'magic rod' that can be dragged for perfect welds. Am I really > missing out here? > I've never used 7024 which is I think a high deposition filler rod for > flat > welding. Do people use this instead of 6013 on say a deck patch? > > ps, this is my first post on this forum. I've a 32 foot sloop, parked too > far away for sense so I need an easily transportable simple set up. > > Most forums I've checked suggest that 6011 6013 is adequate for small boat > maintenance fabrication. There's a lot of experience here - what do people > think? > > cheers > > Anthony > > > > > > On 6 July 2011 18:41, M.J. Malone wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Gary, can you explain 1/8 inch out of position? > > > > I have found that 7018 slag comes off easily, in large chunks, sometimes > > by > > itself. The smoother weld surface seems to be the important factor, or > > my > > far less smooth surfaces with other rod. > > > > I use an AC buzz-box, so I will give another box of 6011 a try. > > > > Matt > > > > > > "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > Matt, > > > Pipe welders commonly use 6010 for the root welds and 7018 for the > > > cover. > > 6010 is highly deoxidizing rod that burns through rust and scale very > > well. > > The bead though has sharp ridges and it doesn’t seal very well. The slag > > comes off very easily with a wire brush. 7018 is a low hydrogen rod. > > That > > reduces hydrogen enbrittlement and cracking, especially at the puddle at > > the > > end of the weld. However the flux coating absorbs water and that defeats > > the > > low hydrogen properties, which leads to crater cracking. It really welds > > well when it is kept in an oven to keep it dry. Old refrigerators with a > > 100 > > watt bulb inside are popular. I used to own a portable oven that held > > about > > 20 lbs of rod that pulled them up when you lifted the cover. It kept > > them at > > about 150 degrees and welds were beautiful, with the slag peeling off on > > its > > own. The other advantage is that it produces very tight welds that > > easily > > pass leak testing. It can be used in all positions, for pipe welding > > that is > > an absolute must, but you need to use 1/8” out of position. > > > A friend taught me how to weld with this rod. He could weld out of > > position using 7/32” rod, but I never could. He welded pipe for several > > months on a chemical plant job and never had a leak anywhere. We got to > > be > > friends when I saw him struggling to heat trace 6” pipe with welded 3/4” > > pipe using weld fittings, for 600 degree hot oil. I was an electrician > > and I > > took a piece of his pipe and made a dozen bends in it with no fittings > > and > > it fit perfectly. The owner of the plant happened to walk by and asked > > who > > did that. When I told him he said “Okay do it everywhere!'” and we wound > > up > > with a whole lot more work. > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:46 AMMatt, > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ages ago, I touted 7018 welding rods as really easy to use. I am told > > most people find 7018 hard to use. I could not see it, so I started > > asking > > why. I still find the rod easy to use, but I have learned more since > > then. > > > > > > When I started asking, I realized, I was using 4.0mm or 5/32 inch > > > E7018 > > AC at close to 200 Amps on steel that was never less than 3/16" thick. > > All > > the 6011 and 6013 work I have done is with 1/8 inch or 3/32 inch rod at > > 75-125 Amps on generally thinner steel. I still find those rods a lot > > harder > > to use. > > > > > > A pro welder explained it to me. First, the 4.0mm E7018 AC rod is not > > > the > > same as the E7018 regular rod. The AC rods are "easy strike". Also, > > using > > 4.0mm rod on thick pieces at high amperage is much easier than using 1/8 > > inch rod on thinner pieces at lower amperage. Also, the 6011 rods are > > more > > for penetrating deeply into parts, and were not made for making it easy > > to > > make nice looking welds. As a "filler" rod, 7018 is meant to make it > > easier > > to make nice finished welds. > > > > > > I have decided that I was probably running my 4.0mm E7018 AC rods a > > > bit > > too hot and this was giving me good results on flat welds, and fillets > > between flat and vertical metal. Since I have been able to re-orient my > > workpieces, I have been able to avoid vertical welds and horizontal > > welds on > > a vertical surface. I have never done overhead welding because I have > > never > > had a workpiece over my head. When welding on an orgami, it seems to me > > that > > one has no opportunity to re-orient most of the time, so one would be > > forced > > to run cooler, and would therefore have more difficulty. One might > > easily > > start wondering why I said 7018 was a good rod. > > > > > > In summary: > > > > > > - The "AC" rating of the E7018 rods I was using made it easier. Some > > > pro > > welders apparently use E7018 AC rods on their DC machines when in the > > field, > > just to make the job easier. > > > > > > - Also, the 4.0 mm size rod and high current on thick parts, in a flat > > orientation made it easier. > > > > > > - Lastly, the 7018 rod is made to give a nicer finish. > > > > > > The smaller 6011 rods I was comparing them to, at lower currents, on > > thinner parts, were not designed for a nice finish, but for weld > > penetration. The pro welder suggested in some cases, one might do a > > first > > bead of 6011 for first penetration, or to fill gaps, and then fill over > > that > > with 7018. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > From: mailto:m_j_malone%40hotmail.com > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:02:43 -0400 > > > > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > From: mailto:carlvolkwein%40yahoo.com > > > 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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.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: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: mailto:matt%40waite.net > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/| 26204|26177|2011-07-10 22:15:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:21:53PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > >From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn > >for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to > >push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. And 5kt is half of that. Pretty sweet on fuel, etc., if you're willing to live with reasonable speeds for a given hull length. > 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW > 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW > 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW > 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW > 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW > 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW > > Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) > Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78) Seems like for that size of boat, a 10kW electric motor (which seems to be the sweet spot, price-wise, for motor and batteries both) would fit the bill quite well: its peak output appears to coincide almost exactly with the power needed to push that boat to hull speed. 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| 26205|26177|2011-07-10 22:25:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:28:29PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > You guys do realize that if you optimize the propeller for powering that you will have good power boat and a poor SAILboat! All the drag from that optimum prop is going to be a terrible price to pay. Better less efficient lower drag prop turning at high RPMs in my book. What about feathering, or variable-pitch props? A friend of mine has had a Hundestadt (if I recall correctly) for years, and loves the thing. I got to run his boat once, and was pleasantly impressed. 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| 26206|26177|2011-07-10 23:28:15|Doug Jackson|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|I priced a Hundestadt. My house cost less. :) Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 9:25:25 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:28:29PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > You guys do realize that if you optimize the propeller for powering that you >will have good power boat and a poor SAILboat! All the drag from that optimum >prop is going to be a terrible price to pay. Better less efficient lower drag >prop turning at high RPMs in my book. What about feathering, or variable-pitch props? A friend of mine has had a Hundestadt (if I recall correctly) for years, and loves the thing. I got to run his boat once, and was pleasantly impressed. 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] | 26207|25669|2011-07-10 23:47:27|Matt Malone|Re: 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson|> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gary.lucas@... > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:40:24 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 7018 welding Rods, was: welding lesson > > Something else I should have mentioned. 70 series rods can NOT make > stronger welds on mild steel which is typically only 50K to 60K tensile. In > fact it will be more likely to crack under high loads. The reason is > simple. Under stress steel stretches. If the weld is 70K and the base > metal is 60K they stretch at different rates. The stress is highest right > at the fusion interface, and the base is lower strength and fails first, not > the weld. I saw this when I was a kid building minibikes at 11 years old. > The pipe coming from the motor mount up to the front forks kept breaking. > My welds didn't break, it always happened right above the weld. I would V > out the break and re-weld it, and it break again above the new weld. At the > time I welding with 7014, and didn't know about metal stress. > Absolutely right. One finds the same problem when combining graphite and glass in the same structure. The graphite is stiffer, so the glass does not carry very much of the load, the graphite breaks first, and then the glass takes the load and stretches a lot. > I have brought this up before. In a past business we hot dip galvanized > everything we built. We had huge numbers of weld failures on thousands of > simple parts due to poor penetration on really great looking welds made with > 0.035 Mig welding wire. All of our problems went away when we forced > everyone to weld with 0.045" wire. You can have as similar problem welding > with stick using too small a rod, or keeping the current too low. Everyone > worries about strong welds on a boat hull. The reality of Origami is that a > full penetration weld is just so incredibly strong that it is extremely > unlikely it will fail as long as reasonable penetration has been achieved. > Thin plated up boats have a much bigger problem, because the right amount of > heat for full penetration can warp the hell out of thin plate. > > Gary H. Lucas I tried 6013 again today -- 3/32" on 3/16" thick metal. Nothing but grapes and blobs. Turned up the amps same result. Not even one centimeter of good weld that I did not have to grind out. Went back to 7018, 60-100" of welds in 20 segments, a couple little problems. I purposely tried the rod that was left in the stinger from last time, so see what a rod full of moisture is like. Yes, I got the aerobar. Rods straight from my container that should in theory be very dry, no problems that I could see, but I did not grind them all out or x-ray them to check, I am not making boilers. Just trying to make continuous beads without hassles. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26208|26177|2011-07-11 00:02:13|Matt Malone|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: ben@... >Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:14:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat > >On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:21:53PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: >> >> >From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn >> >for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to >> >push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. > >And 5kt is half of that. Pretty sweet on fuel, etc., if you're willing >to live with reasonable speeds for a given hull length. Agreed. I expect that fuel efficiency would not be improved as much. >> 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW >> 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW >> 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW >> 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW >> 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW >> 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW >> >> Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) >> Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78) > >Seems like for that size of boat, a 10kW electric motor (which seems to >be the sweet spot, price-wise, for motor and batteries both) would fit >the bill quite well: its peak output appears to coincide almost exactly >with the power needed to push that boat to hull speed. When there is no wind, so that it only takes 10kW to do what you needdone. >Ben Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26209|26177|2011-07-11 00:19:37|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:28:14PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > I priced a Hundestadt. My house cost less. :) Yeah, I recall him mentioning something about paying for the entire US space program or something like that. :) I'm sure there are cheaper variations; I know that a number of commercial fishermen in Oregon use variable-pitch props, and they can't _all_ have bought a Space Shuttle apiece... 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| 26210|26177|2011-07-11 00:59:56|Paul Wilson|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|>>>>You guys do realize that if you optimize the propeller for powering that you will have good power boat and a poor SAILboat! All the drag from that optimum prop is going to be a terrible price to pay. Better less efficient lower drag prop turning at high RPMs in my book. >>>>Gary H. Lucas Exactly right.... I would chose the biggest prop you are willing to drag under sail. I am using a 14 X 10 two blade prop with a 2 :1 gearbox on my 36. Maybe I made a mistake since almost everyone else I knows uses a 1.5 : 1 gearbox but it seems to work OK. I know it would motor more efficiently with a bigger prop but I really wanted less drag under sail without the cost of the folding prop. If I am really keen, I line up the prop with the keel when under sail. I tried a Gori folding prop for awhile but could never really see any difference in drag so I sold it and went back to the fixed prop. I can confirm that in flat calm, I use half the fuel at 5 knots than I do at 6 knots. Going at 7 knots on a 36 footer would be a total waste of fuel. Cheers, Paul| 26211|26177|2011-07-11 14:02:25|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Please note that POWER in that table IS NOT engine/motor power!!! Engine/motor power will be different!!! Quote: Effective horsepower is the power absorbed by moving the boat, presumably with a PERFECT propulsor End of quote. Perfect propulsor - 100% power delivered at the output of propulsor (propulsive power delivered). I did not give additional drag/resistance for waves, air resistance. Feel free to calculate it on your own and add it to hull's drag. Some numbers from Propeller Optimization Program (just for a discussion). BELOW INFORMATION MAY BE INCORRECT!!!! For REFERENCE ONLY!!! (need more work). #1. Optimal propeller (B-series) for the hull (speed 7kn, resistance 2kN, ~ 7kW, 3 blades:) B-series prop (Dp x P): 1.68 x 2.35m ~= 66 x 93in @ 84 RPM, RELAX! We are not going to use it ;)) Prop torque = 0.84kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 7.4 kW. Same delivered thrust = 2kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 5.762 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 7.8kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.781 Propeller Thrust (kN) = 2.0 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.837 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 7.366 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 5.762 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 7.827 ( 10.635 ) #2. ESTIMATION for Optimal Propeller for its size 14" (B-series, 3 blades, speed 7kn, resistance 2kN ~ 7kW): B-series prop (Dp x P): 0.36 x 0.23m ~= 14 x 9in @ 1650 RPM, Prop torque = 0.08kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 14 kW. Same delivered thrust = 2kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 5.762 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 14.8kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.439 Propeller Thrust (kN) = 2.0 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.081 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 13.913 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 5.762 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 14.784 ( 20.087 ) Please note Prop efficiency, Torque and Estimated Power of the engine/motor for these 2 examples. This examples are optimized for speed 7 kn and no additional drag. Example #1 is probably where electric motor with high torque will really shine ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:21:53PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > >From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn > > >for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to > > >push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. > > And 5kt is half of that. Pretty sweet on fuel, etc., if you're willing > to live with reasonable speeds for a given hull length. > > > 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW > > 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW > > 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW > > 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW > > 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW > > 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW > > > > Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) > > Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78) > > Seems like for that size of boat, a 10kW electric motor (which seems to > be the sweet spot, price-wise, for motor and batteries both) would fit > the bill quite well: its peak output appears to coincide almost exactly > with the power needed to push that boat to hull speed. > > > Ben | 26212|26177|2011-07-11 15:42:33|Aaron|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|The electric boat group talks about having a squared prop like 14 x 14. How would you calculations work with that size? or even a 16 Aaron From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:02 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat   Please note that POWER in that table IS NOT engine/motor power!!! Engine/motor power will be different!!! Quote: Effective horsepower is the power absorbed by moving the boat, presumably with a PERFECT propulsor End of quote. Perfect propulsor - 100% power delivered at the output of propulsor (propulsive power delivered). I did not give additional drag/resistance for waves, air resistance. Feel free to calculate it on your own and add it to hull's drag. Some numbers from Propeller Optimization Program (just for a discussion). BELOW INFORMATION MAY BE INCORRECT!!!! For REFERENCE ONLY!!! (need more work). #1. Optimal propeller (B-series) for the hull (speed 7kn, resistance 2kN, ~ 7kW, 3 blades:) B-series prop (Dp x P): 1.68 x 2.35m ~= 66 x 93in @ 84 RPM, RELAX! We are not going to use it ;)) Prop torque = 0.84kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 7.4 kW. Same delivered thrust = 2kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 5.762 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 7.8kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.781 Propeller Thrust (kN) = 2.0 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.837 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 7.366 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 5.762 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 7.827 ( 10.635 ) #2. ESTIMATION for Optimal Propeller for its size 14" (B-series, 3 blades, speed 7kn, resistance 2kN ~ 7kW): B-series prop (Dp x P): 0.36 x 0.23m ~= 14 x 9in @ 1650 RPM, Prop torque = 0.08kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 14 kW. Same delivered thrust = 2kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 5.762 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 14.8kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.439 Propeller Thrust (kN) = 2.0 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.081 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 13.913 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 5.762 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 14.784 ( 20.087 ) Please note Prop efficiency, Torque and Estimated Power of the engine/motor for these 2 examples. This examples are optimized for speed 7 kn and no additional drag. Example #1 is probably where electric motor with high torque will really shine ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 09:21:53PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > >From this table you can see why there is no reason to go above ~7 kn > > >for BS36 (reasonable hull speed). Take a look what force is needed to > > >push hull @ 6 kn. It is half of the force needed to push hull @ 7 kn. > > And 5kt is half of that. Pretty sweet on fuel, etc., if you're willing > to live with reasonable speeds for a given hull length. > > > 5.50 | 2.83 | ~ 2.2 kW > > 6.00 | 3.09 | ~ 3 kW > > 6.50 | 3.34 | ~ 4.3 kW > > 7.00 | 3.60 | ~ 7 kW > > 7.50 | 3.86 | ~ 12 kW > > 8.00 | 4.12 | ~ 20 kW > > > > Ideal propeller efficiency 80% (0.8), jet drives - up to 90 % (0.9) > > Real-life efficiency range for both 40-78% (0.40-0.78) > > Seems like for that size of boat, a 10kW electric motor (which seems to > be the sweet spot, price-wise, for motor and batteries both) would fit > the bill quite well: its peak output appears to coincide almost exactly > with the power needed to push that boat to hull speed. > > > Ben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26213|26177|2011-07-11 16:23:05|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Aaron, I do not know where electric boat group takes their numbers and what type of propeller/series they are talking about. My examples are valid for 3-blade "B-series" propellers ONLY. That why I provided hull's drag. If someone has information/data how to calculate optimal prop for its size from different series, it would be nice. More examples... Example # 3 (compare with #2 - different prop size 17" vs 14") 17" (0.432m), 3 blades B-series prop B-series prop (Dp x P): 0.43 x 0.3m ~= 17 x 12in @ 1100 RPM, Prop torque = 0.1kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 12.5 kW. Same delivered thrust = 2kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 5.762 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 12.5kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.480 Propeller Thrust (kN) = 2.0 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.101 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 11.772 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 5.762 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 12.509 ( 16.996 ) Example # 4 Compare to example #2... Going to (reasonable) extreme... Waves, wind, etc... 14" 3-balde B-series prop... Requires slightly bigger pitch, higher RPM, more torque. Bigger engine/motor. 4kN @ 7kn, 14" 3-blades B-series prop. B-series prop (Dp x P): 0.36 x 0.25m ~= 14 x 10in @ 2010 RPM, Prop torque = 0.18kN*m, prop propulsive power ~= 37.6 kW. Delivered thrust = 4kN and Propeller Shaft Power = 11.5 kW. Estimated Power Engine = 40 kW Propeller Open Water Efficiency = 0.319 Propeller Torque [kN*m] = 0.179 Propeller Propulsive Power [kW] = 37.596 Propeller Shaft Power [kW] = 11.523 Estimated Power Engine, [kW]([bhp]) = 39.949 ( 54.279 ) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > The electric boat group talks about having a squared prop like 14 x 14. > How would you calculations work with that size? or even a 16 > Aaron > | 26214|26177|2011-07-11 23:09:46|mauro gonzaga|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|For electric propulsion, the controllable pitch propeller seems to be the best solution, in terms of possibility of electricity produced when sailing with the wind. Although not cheap. Mauro ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2011 11:48 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat   The proper way is to calculate total drug of the hull FIRST and then to choose propulsion system. As you pointed out, usually it done from the other direction - which is much less useful. Knowing what thrust need to be delivered, you can choose ANY propulsion system you like (even rows). I see several problems at this time: - I still trying to get total drag for BS36 & BS40 as a start point. - We are talking about sailboat. Fixed prop may be not a very good solution (added drag). Most of the time sailboat use sails, additional drag does not help. May be folding prop is better solution, but where to find data for its calculation? It is possible to use data from fixed prop though. - If it was power boat, motoring all the time at the speed near MAX displacement hull speed, we could fit biggest prop which hull allows. Even for BS36, BS40 we still have limit for maximum propeller size about 16-18". So we can find best prop for that size range. - Usually books & software use data for B-series propellers (big ships), but propellers most people will find (small & medium crafts) are usually Gawn series (easier to make). They are different and perform differently. Data is for open water, need to adjust it for given hull. We can go different way and ask BrentsBoat owners willing to record performance of their propulsion systems and get hull drag (thrust need to be delivered). It would be real-world data. One problem here - need to know current displacement of the boat (which could be different than design displacement) before trial. Windage might be added later. What need to know to do backward calculation from trial data: - Engine model, power/torque chart - Gear-box ratio - Prop specs (diameter, pitch, # of blades, etc) - Speed @ RPM data, let say in 250 or 500 RPM step (calm conditions, no current) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Wild, > > You can > calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the > optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it > will be too big to fit in the given aperture and > as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than > average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to > power it. As a result, the calculations are > often run from the other direction. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26215|26215|2011-07-12 04:45:23|Denis Buggy|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|GOOD POST DARREN a big slow prop is the way to go if you can ----- how the big boys do it is PROP 10 METERS DIAM = 180 TONS WEIGHT --WARTSILLA 14 CYL 2 STROKE ENGINE DEVELOPING 109,000 SHP @ 215 REVS . SHIP -- MAERSC EMMA CONTAINER SHIP 25 KNOTS CRUISE SPEED SINGLE ENGINE -- NO GEARBOX ---- STOP ENGINE AND START AGAIN IN REVERSE DIRECTION 6 MILES FROM PORT TO APPLY BRAKES -- THEN LET TUGS DO THE REST .. Wartsillas are made in Switzerland -- no seafarers there -- they have bore wear of .0003mm every 25,000 hours or approx three thousandth of a millimetre cylinder wear every 8--- 10 years of average shipping use. how this is achieved is when you look at a wartsilla you see it is the height of a 4 story building and the reason for this is that the stroke is extremely long -- the piston will never rock in its bore and it will never have skirt wear like every other piston on the planet it will go up and down without any side stresses and will always have a perfect seal as it will always sit in its bore straight up none of the power will be wasted as the conrod from the piston never moves from side to side deflecting force to the side wall as it works . how this miracle is achieved is by the use of a crosshead which is 20 ft below the piston and this is splashed with gallons of oil while it moves in the bore below the piston ----this can drive a conrod while staying cool and well lubricated . you can recondition a fuel system on the trot as each piston has its own fuel system and 13 working pistons is fine until you get the adjustments right --- there is a fine gantry crane fitted over the entire length of the engine for the handy job of a occasional head gasket while also on the trot . you could expect 20 years working life before overhaul of a Wartsilla -- not bad -- for a landlocked nation . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Darren Bos To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat Wild, I think Aaron is right. Especially at slow speeds (sailboat speeds), the bigger prop is more efficient. So big in fact, that the "optimum" prop won't fit in a standard aperture or be turned by a reasonably sized diesel engine. This is why I thought electric motors (one in each keel of a twin keeler) with large folding props would be an interesting experiment. You can calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it will be too big to fit in the given aperture and as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to power it. As a result, the calculations are often run from the other direction. How many HP does it take to get the boat to hullspeed (with a fudge factor for the inefficiency of smaller props), then go with the largest diameter that will fit (maintaining a tip clearance of at least 15% of the propeller diameter), then select a pitch that doesn't overload the engine. Also, it should be pointed out that the optimum prop can often not be selected by calculation alone. Even modern cargo ships with extensive computer modelling can need to go back for a propeller refit after sea trials. Water flow/disturbance into the prop, obstructions (rudders) behind the prop all effect efficiency and are not readily amenable to calculation. If you want to give the calcs a go, Dave Gerr has an excellent book on props and parts of it are available on Google Books. As to making props, I'd be interested to hear what folks have done. I've thought that for a home-built option, carbon fiber would be a great way to go. Vacuum bagging on moulds would be one of the few ways I could produce a prop where all the blades were identical, and if you go for a folding design you can make all the blades from one mould so every blade is near identical. Darren At 02:02 PM 08/07/2011, you wrote: > > >Let's not to jump ahead... First, we need to >match hull (drag) and propulsor (propeller), and >determine how much delivered thrust we need. > >Criteria. I think that the criteria "most >efficiency at cruise speed (not MAX speed)" will >be acceptable for a sailboat. If max speed 0.5 >kn more than cruise speed, but require double >power, it is not worth of effort to go for MAX speed. > >Propeller. What type of propeller is easier to >make? Or what propeller is more suitable for a >sailboat? Biggest fixed propeller may not be the best candidate for it... > >That a big task on its own. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26216|26215|2011-07-12 08:44:26|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:45:19AM +0100, Denis Buggy wrote: > > Wartsillas are made in Switzerland -- no seafarers there -- they have > bore wear of .0003mm every 25,000 hours or approx three thousandth of > a millimetre cylinder wear every 8--- 10 years of average shipping > use. > how this is achieved is when you look at a wartsilla you see it is the > height of a 4 story building and the reason for this is that the > stroke is extremely long -- the piston will never rock in its bore and > it will never have skirt wear like every other piston on the planet > it will go up and down without any side stresses and will always have > a perfect seal as it will always sit in its bore straight up none of > the power will be wasted as the conrod from the piston never moves > from side to side deflecting force to the side wall as it works . I'm trying to imagine the crankshaft they've got. Wow. Unless, of course, they've come up with some other method of converting all that linear motion to rotary. 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| 26217|26215|2011-07-12 09:33:36|Sotos|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|One reason that electric boats are so concerned about propulsive efficiency is that they are so low power - literally there is nothing to spare, and the torque curve is flat relative to your normal Diesel, which makes the ability to load up the engine at low rev's even more important. Getting back to the world most of us occupy, controllable pitch is preferable for auxiliary IC engines too - except that it costs a fortune and is (relatively) delicate. Most gold plated motorsailers use one or a Brunton's automatic pitching prop or something similar. As a basic primer, Gerr's Propeller Handbook is good - though it doesn't cover over-squared freaks. Any more details, I would suggest talking to Stevens Institute or some guys at MIT. A much better way for most of us, if we really want to is to properly match the prop with the torque curve of the engine/transmission. For example, a number of the smaller (15-20 hp )Yanmar engines have torque curves that max out well under there fully rated rpm - often between 2400 and 2600 RPM. Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than adequate for an auxiliary. For Skeg housed props, clearance is a real issue - Gerr goes into some discussion of using the power factor when size is restricted. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:45:19AM +0100, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > > Wartsillas are made in Switzerland -- no seafarers there -- they have > > bore wear of .0003mm every 25,000 hours or approx three thousandth of > > a millimetre cylinder wear every 8--- 10 years of average shipping > > use. > > how this is achieved is when you look at a wartsilla you see it is the > > height of a 4 story building and the reason for this is that the > > stroke is extremely long -- the piston will never rock in its bore and > > it will never have skirt wear like every other piston on the planet > > it will go up and down without any side stresses and will always have > > a perfect seal as it will always sit in its bore straight up none of > > the power will be wasted as the conrod from the piston never moves > > from side to side deflecting force to the side wall as it works . > > I'm trying to imagine the crankshaft they've got. Wow. Unless, of > course, they've come up with some other method of converting all that > linear motion to rotary. > > > 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 > | 26218|26215|2011-07-12 11:51:26|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Wartsila is a Finnish company, where I come from. > Wartsillas are made in Switzerland | 26219|26215|2011-07-12 12:18:06|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Looks like for 14" diameter propeller, fixed 3 or 2 blade 14x8" or 14x9" is the best overall choice (for BS36). I did not check other sizes yet. Calm conditions: 3 blades 14x8" prop 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor With some wind (based on estimated 20 sq.m. lateral wind area for BS36) 3 blades, 14x9", prop 6 kn - 1380 RPM, 0.058kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor, 7 kn - 1790 RPM, 0.096kN*m, 19.1kW (25.6Hp)motor, 2 blades, 14x8" prop 6 kn - 1540 RPM, 0.05kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor 7 kn - 1950 RPM, 0.09kN*m 19.5kW (26Hp) motor It is even possible to fit smaller prop driven directly from the engine (as Brent did). Something like 9x8", 10x8" with speed limit 6kn and engine 18-20Hp, 2500-2700 RPM, ~0.05kN*m With heavy wind more engine power will be needed, But good-old estimate 2-3HP/per ton, looks pretty accurate. The trick is to match drive source to the prop. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Sotos" wrote: > > Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than adequate for an auxiliary. > | 26220|26177|2011-07-12 12:30:49|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Under what conditions motor power is really needed for a sailboat? Some weather advisories recommend to switch to motor power when wind exceed 25 knots ;)) What is the reality? I think this is important question too, because it will affect what compromise you are willing to take on engine_power/speed_limit for your sailboat. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > >>>>You guys do realize that if you optimize the propeller for powering > that you will have good power boat and a poor SAILboat! All the drag > from that optimum prop is going to be a terrible price to pay. Better > less efficient lower drag prop turning at high RPMs in my book. > > >>>>Gary H. Lucas > > Exactly right.... I would chose the biggest prop you are willing to drag > under sail. | 26221|26215|2011-07-12 16:19:00|Paul Wilson|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|There is no best overall choice. You are in the land of compromise. You prop sizes sound too small to me but then again you have picked quite small engines. Wouldn't you just get the best deal on an engine and gearbox you can and then find a prop to match it? Preferably used, try it for awhile, and then change if necessary. In the real world there are too many variables. Torque curves, hp, gearbox ratio, prop diameter, pitch, blade area, number blades, shape, motoring style, etc, etc, etc. It is not unusual to try several props until getting it right. That is why there are lots of used props for sale. Stick to a standard shaft size like 1 inch or 1 1/4 inch so you get a better selection. Paul On 7/13/2011 4:18 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Looks like for 14" diameter propeller, fixed 3 or 2 blade 14x8" or > 14x9" is the best overall choice (for BS36). I did not check other > sizes yet. > > Calm conditions: > 3 blades 14x8" prop > 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor > 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor > > With some wind (based on estimated 20 sq.m. lateral wind area for BS36) > > 3 blades, 14x9", prop > 6 kn - 1380 RPM, 0.058kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor, > 7 kn - 1790 RPM, 0.096kN*m, 19.1kW (25.6Hp)motor, > > 2 blades, 14x8" prop > 6 kn - 1540 RPM, 0.05kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor > 7 kn - 1950 RPM, 0.09kN*m 19.5kW (26Hp) motor > > It is even possible to fit smaller prop driven directly from the > engine (as Brent did). Something like 9x8", 10x8" with speed limit 6kn > and engine 18-20Hp, 2500-2700 RPM, ~0.05kN*m > > With heavy wind more engine power will be needed, But good-old > estimate 2-3HP/per ton, looks pretty accurate. The trick is to match > drive source to the prop. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "Sotos" wrote: > > > > Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would > greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty > - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the > old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than > adequate for an auxiliary. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > | 26222|26215|2011-07-12 17:29:44|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > There is no best overall choice. You are in the land of compromise. You > prop sizes sound too small to me but then again you have picked quite > small engines. I agree, it is all about compromise... This is just information/start point for someone who wants to have 14" prop on BS36. It gives an idea what HP, torque and RPM need to look for on power curve for engine/motor/transmission_combo. Not necessary to have engine/motor with the same BHp as in the table. > > Wouldn't you just get the best deal on an engine and gearbox you can and > then find a prop to match it? That what most people do... I just truing to give what may be optimum prop (start point) in its chosen size for BS36 hull. Sometime it will be hard to find prop (for the system you got cheap) for your application. It might be better to start with propeller first and see what power train can fit it. As in Example #1, optimum (most efficient) prop will be too big for the BS36 hull with some extra side effects - we already making compromise ;)| 26223|26215|2011-07-12 20:22:58|Gary H. Lucas|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|I once installed a big used generator in a chemical plant. It was a White Superior in line 8 cylinder engine with 14” bore and 20” stroke. 21 feet long and 11 feet high, it weighed 55 tons without the 7,000 lb flywheel, or the 6,000 lb turbocharger. It was installed on a concrete foundation with 100 cu’ yds of concrete. The engine was rated 1440 hp at 360 rpm and was air started, using a second camshaft that retimed the valves, and an air receiver pressurized to 270 PSI. The Oil sump held 600 gallons. We had an old guy from White come out and adjust the hold down bolts to get the crankshaft straight. He used a dial indicator between the crankshaft throws and we barred the engine over by hand. He told us the engine ran best on crude oil, and that these engines were used in tugboats with direct drive. They had a slightly different cam setup that would time the valves for reverse rotation. I got a kick out of starting that engine. You’d pull on the handle and it would start turning slowly and chugging. The pyrometers on each cylinder would indicate which cylinders were firing, and after sitting for a month or two it would often start on just two cylinders. You’d climb up on the cat walk along the cylinder heads and bleed the injectors. Then you’d open a valve on the cylinder head and if you got smoke it wasn’t firing. If you got a nice 4 foot long flame you were good to go. We visited the Owls Head Sewerage Authority in lower Manhattan to see 6 of them running before we installed this one. They told us the the engines used to get 20,000 hours on a set of cast iron rings. The new chrome rings though were lasting up to 70,000 hours! Neat stuff! Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:45 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat GOOD POST DARREN a big slow prop is the way to go if you can ----- how the big boys do it is PROP 10 METERS DIAM = 180 TONS WEIGHT --WARTSILLA 14 CYL 2 STROKE ENGINE DEVELOPING 109,000 SHP @ 215 REVS . SHIP -- MAERSC EMMA CONTAINER SHIP 25 KNOTS CRUISE SPEED SINGLE ENGINE -- NO GEARBOX ---- STOP ENGINE AND START AGAIN IN REVERSE DIRECTION 6 MILES FROM PORT TO APPLY BRAKES -- THEN LET TUGS DO THE REST .. Wartsillas are made in Switzerland -- no seafarers there -- they have bore wear of .0003mm every 25,000 hours or approx three thousandth of a millimetre cylinder wear every 8--- 10 years of average shipping use. how this is achieved is when you look at a wartsilla you see it is the height of a 4 story building and the reason for this is that the stroke is extremely long -- the piston will never rock in its bore and it will never have skirt wear like every other piston on the planet it will go up and down without any side stresses and will always have a perfect seal as it will always sit in its bore straight up none of the power will be wasted as the conrod from the piston never moves from side to side deflecting force to the side wall as it works . how this miracle is achieved is by the use of a crosshead which is 20 ft below the piston and this is splashed with gallons of oil while it moves in the bore below the piston ----this can drive a conrod while staying cool and well lubricated . you can recondition a fuel system on the trot as each piston has its own fuel system and 13 working pistons is fine until you get the adjustments right --- there is a fine gantry crane fitted over the entire length of the engine for the handy job of a occasional head gasket while also on the trot . you could expect 20 years working life before overhaul of a Wartsilla -- not bad -- for a landlocked nation . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Darren Bos To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat Wild, I think Aaron is right. Especially at slow speeds (sailboat speeds), the bigger prop is more efficient. So big in fact, that the "optimum" prop won't fit in a standard aperture or be turned by a reasonably sized diesel engine. This is why I thought electric motors (one in each keel of a twin keeler) with large folding props would be an interesting experiment. You can calculate what size/pitch of prop would give the optimum theoretical efficiency for a boat, but it will be too big to fit in the given aperture and as Aaron pointed out you would need a larger than average (for a given boat size) diesel engine to power it. As a result, the calculations are often run from the other direction. How many HP does it take to get the boat to hullspeed (with a fudge factor for the inefficiency of smaller props), then go with the largest diameter that will fit (maintaining a tip clearance of at least 15% of the propeller diameter), then select a pitch that doesn't overload the engine. Also, it should be pointed out that the optimum prop can often not be selected by calculation alone. Even modern cargo ships with extensive computer modelling can need to go back for a propeller refit after sea trials. Water flow/disturbance into the prop, obstructions (rudders) behind the prop all effect efficiency and are not readily amenable to calculation. If you want to give the calcs a go, Dave Gerr has an excellent book on props and parts of it are available on Google Books. As to making props, I'd be interested to hear what folks have done. I've thought that for a home-built option, carbon fiber would be a great way to go. Vacuum bagging on moulds would be one of the few ways I could produce a prop where all the blades were identical, and if you go for a folding design you can make all the blades from one mould so every blade is near identical. Darren At 02:02 PM 08/07/2011, you wrote: > > >Let's not to jump ahead... First, we need to >match hull (drag) and propulsor (propeller), and >determine how much delivered thrust we need. > >Criteria. I think that the criteria "most >efficiency at cruise speed (not MAX speed)" will >be acceptable for a sailboat. If max speed 0.5 >kn more than cruise speed, but require double >power, it is not worth of effort to go for MAX speed. > >Propeller. What type of propeller is easier to >make? Or what propeller is more suitable for a >sailboat? Biggest fixed propeller may not be the best candidate for it... > >That a big task on its own. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26224|26215|2011-07-12 21:05:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:23:40PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > You’d climb up on the cat walk along the cylinder heads and bleed the > injectors. Then you’d open a valve on the cylinder head and if you > got smoke it wasn’t firing. If you got a nice 4 foot long flame you > were good to go. That's what I call a subtle indication... :) > We visited the Owls Head Sewerage Authority in > lower Manhattan to see 6 of them running before we installed this > one. They told us the the engines used to get 20,000 hours on a set > of cast iron rings. The new chrome rings though were lasting up to > 70,000 hours! > > Neat stuff! I love stories like that. Thanks, Gary! There are, of course, a bunch of YouTube videos including a nice little piece about the Wartsila 46: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXHvY-zY9hA Damn, but that thing is huge. I really like the bit where the tech is walking around and inspecting things, standing full height under the crankshaft *while it's running...* 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| 26225|26215|2011-07-13 00:02:21|Darren Bos|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|For those who still haven't had enough about props, here's a link to a nice article out of MIT. It shows that even once you have decided on diameter and pitch, there are still a pretty big differences between different brands and styles of props. http://www.catamaransite.com/files/propeller.pdf Although I agree with Paul that there is no "best choice" and experimentation is likely required, I do think there are some general guidelines which hold true across many sailboats. As long as you are not extremely limited by propeller aperture, a two bladed prop is usually more efficient than a three bladed under power and will provide less drag under sail (especially if you lock the two blade aligned with a keel or skeg). If you want less drag under sail a folding or feathering prop is really the way to go. However, the real sweet spot when you compare dollars per performance is likely to be a two bladed fixed prop that you can lock aligned behind the keel. Since many folks here are building, it makes sense to be sure the propeller aperture is big enough you can fit a reasonably sized two bladed prop. If you're stuck with a three blade you either have to just live with the drag (really not the end of the world), spend the money on a fancy feathering or folding prop, or let the prop freewheel to reduce drag a bit (but have wear on the transmission). Darren At 01:19 PM 12/07/2011, you wrote: >There is no best overall choice. You are in the land of compromise. You >prop sizes sound too small to me but then again you have picked quite >small engines. > >Wouldn't you just get the best deal on an engine and gearbox you can and >then find a prop to match it? Preferably used, try it for awhile, and >then change if necessary. In the real world there are too many >variables. Torque curves, hp, gearbox ratio, prop diameter, pitch, blade >area, number blades, shape, motoring style, etc, etc, etc. > >It is not unusual to try several props until getting it right. That is >why there are lots of used props for sale. Stick to a standard shaft >size like 1 inch or 1 1/4 inch so you get a better selection. > >Paul > >On 7/13/2011 4:18 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > Looks like for 14" diameter propeller, fixed 3 or 2 blade 14x8" or > > 14x9" is the best overall choice (for BS36). I did not check other > > sizes yet. > > > > Calm conditions: > > 3 blades 14x8" prop > > 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor > > 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor > > > > With some wind (based on estimated 20 sq.m. lateral wind area for BS36) > > > > 3 blades, 14x9", prop > > 6 kn - 1380 RPM, 0.058kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor, > > 7 kn - 1790 RPM, 0.096kN*m, 19.1kW (25.6Hp)motor, > > > > 2 blades, 14x8" prop > > 6 kn - 1540 RPM, 0.05kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor > > 7 kn - 1950 RPM, 0.09kN*m 19.5kW (26Hp) motor > > > > It is even possible to fit smaller prop driven directly from the > > engine (as Brent did). Something like 9x8", 10x8" with speed limit 6kn > > and engine 18-20Hp, 2500-2700 RPM, ~0.05kN*m > > > > With heavy wind more engine power will be needed, But good-old > > estimate 2-3HP/per ton, looks pretty accurate. The trick is to match > > drive source to the prop. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "Sotos" wrote: > > > > > > Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would > > greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty > > - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the > > old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than > > adequate for an auxiliary. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > > >------------------------------------ > >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]| 26226|26215|2011-07-13 04:48:32|j|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|The large two bladed prop is the way I'm thinking for the BS36. Maybe even 20" or more, with a 4:1 reduction on my electric motor, with max prop revs about 750 RPM. Big torque at low revs, will overcome tide/current/wind far better than a smaller prop thrashing the water uselessly. Also if regenerative power works at all, it is with large diameter props that turn easily at low revs. I know of no definitive evidence that can say whether a free spinning prop causes more or less drag than a fixed prop when sailing. If it is so close then using any available energy for something more useful than simply slowing your boat down under sail would be good. John. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > For those who still haven't had enough about props, here's a link to > a nice article out of MIT. It shows that even once you have decided > on diameter and pitch, there are still a pretty big differences > between different brands and styles of > props. > http://www.catamaransite.com/files/propeller.pdf > > > Although I agree with Paul that there is no "best choice" and > experimentation is likely required, I do think there are some general > guidelines which hold true across many sailboats. As long as you are > not extremely limited by propeller aperture, a two bladed prop is > usually more efficient than a three bladed under power and will > provide less drag under sail (especially if you lock the two blade > aligned with a keel or skeg). If you want less drag under sail a > folding or feathering prop is really the way to go. However, the > real sweet spot when you compare dollars per performance is likely to > be a two bladed fixed prop that you can lock aligned behind the > keel. Since many folks here are building, it makes sense to be sure > the propeller aperture is big enough you can fit a reasonably sized > two bladed prop. If you're stuck with a three blade you either have > to just live with the drag (really not the end of the world), spend > the money on a fancy feathering or folding prop, or let the prop > freewheel to reduce drag a bit (but have wear on the transmission). > > Darren > > > At 01:19 PM 12/07/2011, you wrote: > >There is no best overall choice. You are in the land of compromise. You > >prop sizes sound too small to me but then again you have picked quite > >small engines. > > > >Wouldn't you just get the best deal on an engine and gearbox you can and > >then find a prop to match it? Preferably used, try it for awhile, and > >then change if necessary. In the real world there are too many > >variables. Torque curves, hp, gearbox ratio, prop diameter, pitch, blade > >area, number blades, shape, motoring style, etc, etc, etc. > > > >It is not unusual to try several props until getting it right. That is > >why there are lots of used props for sale. Stick to a standard shaft > >size like 1 inch or 1 1/4 inch so you get a better selection. > > > >Paul > > > >On 7/13/2011 4:18 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > > > Looks like for 14" diameter propeller, fixed 3 or 2 blade 14x8" or > > > 14x9" is the best overall choice (for BS36). I did not check other > > > sizes yet. > > > > > > Calm conditions: > > > 3 blades 14x8" prop > > > 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor > > > 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor > > > > > > With some wind (based on estimated 20 sq.m. lateral wind area for BS36) > > > > > > 3 blades, 14x9", prop > > > 6 kn - 1380 RPM, 0.058kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor, > > > 7 kn - 1790 RPM, 0.096kN*m, 19.1kW (25.6Hp)motor, > > > > > > 2 blades, 14x8" prop > > > 6 kn - 1540 RPM, 0.05kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor > > > 7 kn - 1950 RPM, 0.09kN*m 19.5kW (26Hp) motor > > > > > > It is even possible to fit smaller prop driven directly from the > > > engine (as Brent did). Something like 9x8", 10x8" with speed limit 6kn > > > and engine 18-20Hp, 2500-2700 RPM, ~0.05kN*m > > > > > > With heavy wind more engine power will be needed, But good-old > > > estimate 2-3HP/per ton, looks pretty accurate. The trick is to match > > > drive source to the prop. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "Sotos" wrote: > > > > > > > > Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would > > > greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty > > > - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the > > > old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than > > > adequate for an auxiliary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > >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] > | 26227|26215|2011-07-13 10:43:06|Darren Bos|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|John, I agree, a large, slow, two-bladed prop is the same approach I favor. As to the free spinning prop thing.... This is one of the more convincing pieces of evidence I have seen that drag is lower while spinning http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f114/prop-shaft-spinning-when-sailing-7815-2.html there is a video about halfway down the page. This test of course ignores the effect of a keel or skeg and locking a two-bladed prop behind them might be the best solution for a fixed-blade prop (easy enough to test under sail). Of course if you are using the prop to generate electricity under sail it is no longer free-spinning, the more power you generate the closer the prop is to being "locked" and thus drag is likely to go up. Darren At 01:48 AM 13/07/2011, you wrote: > > >The large two bladed prop is the way I'm >thinking for the BS36. Maybe even 20" or more, >with a 4:1 reduction on my electric motor, with >max prop revs about 750 RPM. Big torque at low >revs, will overcome tide/current/wind far better >than a smaller prop thrashing the water >uselessly. Also if regenerative power works at >all, it is with large diameter props that turn >easily at low revs. I know of no definitive >evidence that can say whether a free spinning >prop causes more or less drag than a fixed prop >when sailing. If it is so close then using any >available energy for something more useful than >simply slowing your boat down under sail would be good. >John. > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >Darren Bos wrote: > > > > For those who still haven't had enough about props, here's a link to > > a nice article out of MIT. It shows that even once you have decided > > on diameter and pitch, there are still a pretty big differences > > between different brands and styles of > > props. > > > <http://www.catamaransite.com/files/propeller.pdf>http://www.catamaransite.com/files/propeller.pdf > > > > > > > Although I agree with Paul that there is no "best choice" and > > experimentation is likely required, I do think there are some general > > guidelines which hold true across many sailboats. As long as you are > > not extremely limited by propeller aperture, a two bladed prop is > > usually more efficient than a three bladed under power and will > > provide less drag under sail (especially if you lock the two blade > > aligned with a keel or skeg). If you want less drag under sail a > > folding or feathering prop is really the way to go. However, the > > real sweet spot when you compare dollars per performance is likely to > > be a two bladed fixed prop that you can lock aligned behind the > > keel. Since many folks here are building, it makes sense to be sure > > the propeller aperture is big enough you can fit a reasonably sized > > two bladed prop. If you're stuck with a three blade you either have > > to just live with the drag (really not the end of the world), spend > > the money on a fancy feathering or folding prop, or let the prop > > freewheel to reduce drag a bit (but have wear on the transmission). > > > > Darren > > > > > > At 01:19 PM 12/07/2011, you wrote: > > >There is no best overall choice. You are in the land of compromise. You > > >prop sizes sound too small to me but then again you have picked quite > > >small engines. > > > > > >Wouldn't you just get the best deal on an engine and gearbox you can and > > >then find a prop to match it? Preferably used, try it for awhile, and > > >then change if necessary. In the real world there are too many > > >variables. Torque curves, hp, gearbox ratio, prop diameter, pitch, blade > > >area, number blades, shape, motoring style, etc, etc, etc. > > > > > >It is not unusual to try several props until getting it right. That is > > >why there are lots of used props for sale. Stick to a standard shaft > > >size like 1 inch or 1 1/4 inch so you get a better selection. > > > > > >Paul > > > > > >On 7/13/2011 4:18 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > > > > > Looks like for 14" diameter propeller, fixed 3 or 2 blade 14x8" or > > > > 14x9" is the best overall choice (for BS36). I did not check other > > > > sizes yet. > > > > > > > > Calm conditions: > > > > 3 blades 14x8" prop > > > > 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor > > > > 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor > > > > > > > > With some wind (based on estimated 20 sq.m. lateral wind area for BS36) > > > > > > > > 3 blades, 14x9", prop > > > > 6 kn - 1380 RPM, 0.058kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor, > > > > 7 kn - 1790 RPM, 0.096kN*m, 19.1kW (25.6Hp)motor, > > > > > > > > 2 blades, 14x8" prop > > > > 6 kn - 1540 RPM, 0.05kN*m, 8.9kW (11.9Hp) motor > > > > 7 kn - 1950 RPM, 0.09kN*m 19.5kW (26Hp) motor > > > > > > > > It is even possible to fit smaller prop driven directly from the > > > > engine (as Brent did). Something like 9x8", 10x8" with speed limit 6kn > > > > and engine 18-20Hp, 2500-2700 RPM, ~0.05kN*m > > > > > > > > With heavy wind more engine power will be needed, But good-old > > > > estimate 2-3HP/per ton, looks pretty accurate. The trick is to match > > > > drive source to the prop. > > > > > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > , "Sotos" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sizing the prop and governing the engine around this maximum would > > > > greatly increase efficiency - though probably blow you out of warranty > > > > - as long as you have sufficient HP available for your task. In the > > > > old days 2-3 hp per long ton at the prop was considered more than > > > > adequate for an auxiliary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > > > > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3759 - Release Date: 07/11/11 > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > > > >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]| 26228|26215|2011-07-13 11:37:30|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|I my 3D model, I was unable to fit propeller to the skeg bigger than 16x11 inches (to have 20% propeller's diameter clearance from the hull and zero deg prop shaft). Do not forget about limit on the pitch too. In my case it is a real problem. I had to limit diameter of the propeller to have reasonable size in horizontal direction. So, biggest 2 blade prop I can fit is: 2 blades, 16 x 9 inch prop 6 kn - 1315 RPM, 0.06kN*m, 8.62kW (11.7Hp) motor power 7 kn - 1635 RPM, 0.10kN*m, 18.02kW (24.5Hp) motor power 3 blades prop will allow to reduce engine speed ~ 150 RPM and have pitch 1" more for prop (16 x 10 in). As I understand, recommended prop shaft diameter is about ~ 1/14 of prop diameter. Installing shaft for bigger prop, may not allow you to fit smaller diameter propeller (shaft will be too big for smaller standard prop). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Since many folks here are building, it makes sense to be sure > the propeller aperture is big enough you can fit a reasonably sized > two bladed prop. If you're stuck with a three blade you either have > to just live with the drag (really not the end of the world), spend > the money on a fancy feathering or folding prop, or let the prop > freewheel to reduce drag a bit (but have wear on the transmission). > > Darren | 26229|1258|2011-07-13 12:35:30|Pierre|plans|Hi, I've been looking at the Brent Swain sailboat for about a year now, and I'm starting to think that I might try to buy one or build one for my self. I only have a few question for you guys. First of all when you buy the plans, are they full scale? And is it possible for a guy that never welded (but i'm pretty handy) to build a steel boat? Thanks a lot guys, Pierre| 26230|1258|2011-07-13 13:35:48|kingsknight4life|Re: plans|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been looking at the Brent Swain sailboat for about a year now, and I'm starting to think that I might try to buy one or build one for my self. I only have a few question for you guys. > > First of all when you buy the plans, are they full scale? > And is it possible for a guy that never welded (but i'm pretty handy) to build a steel boat? > > Thanks a lot guys, > > Pierre > Hi Pierre I'm not sure what you mean by full scale? They are printed on paper and the scale is around 1" = 1 foot & there are about 6 sheets of drawings in the plans. I think a tremendous help would be to buy both Brent's book and Alex's DVD as seeing it being built will show you things that plans never could. The DVD will give you techniques, hints & short cuts not just dimensions. I think if you are handy, building a Swain boat is within reach of most peoples skills. You can also get help or pay for the parts that you can't or won't do. ie. most people pay a spray foamer and I'm sure most would hire a sandblaster if they had to do it again :) Good luck, hopefully one day you will be launching a boat. (and maybe I will too) Rowland| 26231|26215|2011-07-13 13:47:48|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|It looks like Inboard 15-17" propellers are not so common as, let's say, 14" outboard propellers. 18-20" inboard props are even less common. I was able to find only one company so far which makes inboard props 10-18" for a sailboat for not-so-bad price (requires tapered shaft?): Michigan Sailor 2 Blade Propellers (10 to 18 inch diameter?) Michigan Wheel Sailor 3 Propellers (10 to 18 inch diameter?) Price is in the range $300-500 new. Would be to costly "just to try it and sale later". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "j" wrote: > > The large two bladed prop is the way I'm thinking for the BS36. | 26232|1258|2011-07-13 14:03:01|Pierre|Re: plans|I just sent the money this morning for Brent's book, can't wait to have it... I would like to buy a BS instead of building one but I noticed that they are very rare on the net. I think I only saw one for sale (Silver Moon I think) in six month but I probably missed a few. So if I can't find any, I might just build one... When I said full scale plans I meant 1ft=1ft. I'm pretty sure that's how Bruce Roberts plans are but there also more expensive... Thanks Rowland, Pierre --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've been looking at the Brent Swain sailboat for about a year now, and I'm starting to think that I might try to buy one or build one for my self. I only have a few question for you guys. > > > > First of all when you buy the plans, are they full scale? > > And is it possible for a guy that never welded (but i'm pretty handy) to build a steel boat? > > > > Thanks a lot guys, > > > > Pierre > > > Hi Pierre > I'm not sure what you mean by full scale? They are printed on paper and the scale is around 1" = 1 foot & there are about 6 sheets of drawings in the plans. I think a tremendous help would be to buy both Brent's book and Alex's DVD as seeing it being built will show you things that plans never could. The DVD will give you techniques, hints & short cuts not just dimensions. > > I think if you are handy, building a Swain boat is within reach of most peoples skills. You can also get help or pay for the parts that you can't or won't do. ie. most people pay a spray foamer and I'm sure most would hire a sandblaster if they had to do it again :) > > Good luck, hopefully one day you will be launching a boat. (and maybe I will too) > Rowland > | 26233|1258|2011-07-13 16:18:44|brentswain38|Re: plans|No I don't do full scale , but the loftings are as simple as I could make them. If you are at all handy with tools, you will have no problem building your own. They have often been built by people with no metal working experience, and none have had any problem with it. The process is extremely simple and forgiving. When I am working with an owner, I make sure they pick up some metal working and welding skills, in the process. Some have gone on to become qualified fitters and welders, as a career. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > I just sent the money this morning for Brent's book, can't wait to have it... I would like to buy a BS instead of building one but I noticed that they are very rare on the net. I think I only saw one for sale (Silver Moon I think) in six month but I probably missed a few. > > So if I can't find any, I might just build one... > > When I said full scale plans I meant 1ft=1ft. I'm pretty sure that's how Bruce Roberts plans are but there also more expensive... > > Thanks Rowland, > > Pierre > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've been looking at the Brent Swain sailboat for about a year now, and I'm starting to think that I might try to buy one or build one for my self. I only have a few question for you guys. > > > > > > First of all when you buy the plans, are they full scale? > > > And is it possible for a guy that never welded (but i'm pretty handy) to build a steel boat? > > > > > > Thanks a lot guys, > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > Hi Pierre > > I'm not sure what you mean by full scale? They are printed on paper and the scale is around 1" = 1 foot & there are about 6 sheets of drawings in the plans. I think a tremendous help would be to buy both Brent's book and Alex's DVD as seeing it being built will show you things that plans never could. The DVD will give you techniques, hints & short cuts not just dimensions. > > > > I think if you are handy, building a Swain boat is within reach of most peoples skills. You can also get help or pay for the parts that you can't or won't do. ie. most people pay a spray foamer and I'm sure most would hire a sandblaster if they had to do it again :) > > > > Good luck, hopefully one day you will be launching a boat. (and maybe I will too) > > Rowland > > > | 26234|25937|2011-07-13 16:27:30|brentswain38|Re: brent swain's book|Mike Thanks for the plug. You could always post this message on other sites, where you definitely wouldn't be preaching to the converted, including some metal boat sites. Thanks --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, m m wrote: > > 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] > | 26235|26235|2011-07-13 17:05:38|brentswain38|Roller furling|I just visited a friend who had been sailing for decades on his 36 ft Ingrid with the headsail furler I described in my book. He had recently converted to a far more complex and expensive commercially made furler. When I asked him what the advantages of the commercially made one was, he said " Zero. I cant see any advantage.The conversion was an expensive mistake, I wouldn't do again." My furler cost me under $100| 26236|26236|2011-07-13 19:17:55|IAN CAMPBELL|(optimal) speed for 36 foot/30 foot waterline...|Using the excellent table posted earlier, 5 knots in flat calm on a 30 foot waterline, 36 foot, 220000 pound sailboat uses approx. 1.6 kw of power approx.which i8s about 2 horsepower! 2hp. My question is:  Running say a 22 or 30 hp diesel at revs to produce 5 knots....is this too slow to ensure a long life for the diesel?   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26237|26236|2011-07-13 19:35:54|brentswain38|(optimal) speed for 36 foot/30 foot waterline...|I know diesel Mechanic who runs his VW 48 hp diesel at around 22 HP. Ed Klassen, of Klassen Diesel , told a friend that he can run his 50 hp diesel at 22 hp , as long as he revs it up from time to time, before shutting down, to blow the carbon out. Another friend was told that at a diesel engine course. A diver I know, was having trouble getting the diesel on his compressor started. A mechanic told him to run it hard with no load on, to blow the carbon out, before shutting down. He did that, and has had no starting problems since. No problem running a diesel at half throttle most of the time, as long as you give it full throttle from time to time to clean it out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > Using the excellent table posted earlier, 5 knots in flat calm on a 30 foot waterline, 36 foot, 220000 pound sailboat uses approx. 1.6 kw of power approx.which i8s about 2 horsepower! 2hp. > > My question is: > >  Running say a 22 or 30 hp diesel at revs to produce 5 knots....is this too slow to ensure a long life for the diesel? > > >   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26238|26236|2011-07-13 20:01:12|wild_explorer|(optimal) speed for 36 foot/30 foot waterline...|Looks like Effective Horsepower (EHP) in that tables creates a lot of confusion. It is NOT engine power. It is power which needs to be delivered to the water by the output of the PROPULSOR (propeller, etc) to overcame boat resistance/drag. DELIVERED power is much less than input power. See message # 26211 (example #2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/26211 Some sources recommend to run diesel at ~70% of rated power to prolong engine life (and save fuel). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > Using the excellent table posted earlier, 5 knots in flat calm on a 30 foot waterline, 36 foot, 220000 pound sailboat uses approx. 1.6 kw of power approx.which i8s about 2 horsepower! 2hp. > | 26239|26239|2011-07-13 21:12:30|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|ketch rig VS bermudian|are there any origami rigged as ketch? I dont remember any post mentionning ti. any advantages? I changed my mind about rigging my boat as a gaff rig, too much trouble. but I see the ketch as an alternative.| 26240|1258|2011-07-14 01:50:56|kingsknight4life|Re: plans|> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > > > ...I just sent the money this morning for Brent's book, can't wait to have it... I would like to buy a BS instead of building one but I noticed that they are very rare on the net. I think I only saw one for sale (Silver Moon I think) in six month but I probably missed a few. > > > > So if I can't find any, I might just build one... > > > Pierre > > > > > > > Pierre There are two on yacht world right now. Both are fin keelers. Rowland| 26241|26236|2011-07-14 05:08:59|Denis Buggy|Re: (optimal) speed for 36 foot/30 foot waterline...|DEAR IAN I do not know my stuff re props however I would think a bigger prop would be a easier solution rather than a small engine . running at idling load for protracted periods will glaze the bore leading to oil consumption and loss of power and increased use of un combusted diesel which is the real killer . somebody in another post stated you should run a engine at full revs to de coke it before shutdown --- IF IT HAS A TURBO YOU WILL SPEED UP THE TURBO SHAFT TO 100,000 REVS AND THEN STARVE IT OF OIL WHEN IT NEEDS IT MOST --not a good idea . we addressed this problem before and I suggested that the only reliable information was from those who had changed props and found the correct prop by trial and error -- if a number of people found the sweet spot then that is the definitive answer to a black art --- I think you should consult a costal fisherman's site as they have to get out to their pots every day without delay or by using too much fuel --and they will not put up with a wrong prop for long . regards Denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: IAN CAMPBELL To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:17 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re:(optimal) speed for 36 foot/30 foot waterline... Using the excellent table posted earlier, 5 knots in flat calm on a 30 foot waterline, 36 foot, 220000 pound sailboat uses approx. 1.6 kw of power approx.which i8s about 2 horsepower! 2hp. My question is: Running say a 22 or 30 hp diesel at revs to produce 5 knots....is this too slow to ensure a long life for the diesel? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26242|26215|2011-07-14 09:37:00|Darren Bos|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Wild, While I think this is a good exercise to go through in terms of understanding prop optimization, I don't think there is a basis to say a 14X9 three blade prop is the best starting point for a Swain 36. To start, I can't find a source where you could even buy a b-series 14x9. So you will have to choose a different design and as the MIT paper I linked shows, there is enough variation between manufacturers and blade shapes etc that you could see enough difference in performance to shift you two inches in pitch, maybe even in diameter. Annoyingly, there isn't much data published for many brands of folding or feathering props to even make a first-order comparison. I'm also surprised by the last set of data. As your first post shows, the best efficiency comes from a ridiculously large prop. As you go to a larger prop you should be seeing efficiency increase, not a decrease (comparing result below to the previous post (3 blades 14x8" prop, 6 kn - 1350 RPM, 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor, 7 kn - 1700 RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor). Something is missing. John is also talking about something very different from what you have been doing. A design to include a slow-turning large-diameter prop driven by an electric motor is a different beast from they typical diesel installation. So far diesel has been cheap, I think you could even argue it still is. As a result, the average prop installation is pretty inefficient when you look at the entire system. I still think it makes a lot of sense to get a cheap diesel engine, fit the largest two blade prop you can and go enjoy yourself. If your "system efficiency" includes the amount of beer money you have left over this is very likely to be the winner. Unfortunately, I am one of those who can't leave things well enough alone. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with an electric power system. If you want to take a left turn in your calcs, imagine what happens if you split the power requirements between two electric motors (so you are now in the range of cheaper motors and controllers) put one in each keel and as a result have room for really large slow-turning props (lets make them counter-rotating just to be fancy). Now you could park the props (preferably feathering) one behind each keel when sailing and have pretty good efficiency of the entire system compared to the average diesel installation. Maybe not the cheapest way to go, but everyone needs a hobby and it is still a lot cheaper than golf. I'll show the calcs when I get around to it, I've lost the envelopes I dreamed up the scheme on. Darren At 08:37 AM 13/07/2011, you wrote: > > >I my 3D model, I was unable to fit propeller to >the skeg bigger than 16x11 inches (to have 20% >propeller's diameter clearance from the hull and >zero deg prop shaft). Do not forget about limit >on the pitch too. In my case it is a real >problem. I had to limit diameter of the >propeller to have reasonable size in horizontal >direction. So, biggest 2 blade prop I can fit is: > >2 blades, 16 x 9 inch prop > >6 kn - 1315 RPM, 0.06kN*m, 8.62kW (11.7Hp) motor power >7 kn - 1635 RPM, 0.10kN*m, 18.02kW (24.5Hp) motor power > >3 blades prop will allow to reduce engine speed >~ 150 RPM and have pitch 1" more for prop (16 x 10 in). > >As I understand, recommended prop shaft diameter >is about ~ 1/14 of prop diameter. Installing >shaft for bigger prop, may not allow you to fit >smaller diameter propeller (shaft will be too big for smaller standard prop). > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >Darren Bos wrote: > > > > Since many folks here are building, it makes sense to be sure > > the propeller aperture is big enough you can fit a reasonably sized > > two bladed prop. If you're stuck with a three blade you either have > > to just live with the drag (really not the end of the world), spend > > the money on a fancy feathering or folding prop, or let the prop > > freewheel to reduce drag a bit (but have wear on the transmission). > > > > Darren > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26243|26215|2011-07-14 12:32:57|wild_explorer|Re: DIY (optimal) propeller for 36 & 40 ft BrentBoat|Darren, --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Wild, > > While I think this is a good exercise to go > through in terms of understanding prop > optimization, I don't think there is a basis to > say a 14X9 three blade prop is the best starting > point for a Swain 36. To start, I can't find a > source where you could even buy a b-series > 14x9. So you will have to choose a different > design and as the MIT paper I linked shows, there > is enough variation between manufacturers and > blade shapes etc that you could see enough > difference in performance to shift you two inches > in pitch, maybe even in diameter. I have to agree that 14" prop may not be a good choice, it just LOOKS like there are more choices for props in that size range. May be more for outboards, but not for sailboat inboards. "Largest prop you can fit" (with needed clearance) may be better alternative. If you go for folding prop, you need to have extra room for prop when blades are folded. > Annoyingly, > there isn't much data published for many brands > of folding or feathering props to even make a > first-order comparison. Yep, another big problem.... Probably need to contact manufacturer (with resistance/drag data for the hull and room for propeller) and ask what prop they recommend. Thanks for excellent link about test of different propellers! > I'm also surprised by > the last set of data. As your first post shows, > the best efficiency comes from a ridiculously > large prop. As you go to a larger prop you > should be seeing efficiency increase, not a > decrease (comparing result below to the previous > post (3 blades 14x8" prop, 6 kn - 1350 RPM, > 0.036kN*m, 5.46kW (7.32Hp) motor, 7 kn - 1700 > RPM, 0.074kN*m, 13.9 kW (18.7Hp) motor). Something is missing. > I forgot to mention in my last post (data below) that the data is for the condition with some wind ;). Data above - for no wind condition. Because I took "beam" windage area, which is about 3 times more than front area, it is for pretty good wind. Need to put my estimates in more understandable table to avoid confusions... > > >2 blades, 16 x 9 inch prop > > > >6 kn - 1315 RPM, 0.06kN*m, 8.62kW (11.7Hp) motor power > >7 kn - 1635 RPM, 0.10kN*m, 18.02kW (24.5Hp) motor power > > P.S. It will be interesting to see what numbers you came up with for big props behind the keels (twins?). | 26244|26215|2011-07-14 15:51:05|Matt Malone|What is a good combo DC Welder / Plasma Cutter ?|I know it has been mentioned before, but I have forgotten. Someone mentioned a good, inexpensive inverter-box welder that also does plasma cutting also. I have to believe my amazing skill with 4.0mm 7018 at 195 Amps and my complete lack of any skill with 6011 and 6013 has to have something to do with my current welder. So I am shopping for a DC unit. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26245|26245|2011-07-14 16:42:43|Pierre|Paint job|One of my friend has a Spray 33, the boat has been in salt water for 4 years and this spring he had the under body of his hull sand blasted and repainted by professional because the hull was rusting. The paint wasn't chipped off or anything, but small bubbles of rust were popping through the paint. Is that something common? After the new paint job, the professional that did the job told him that it should be good for at least 5 year without problems. I can't believe that a good paint job only last five years...So can you guys tell me how long your boats has been in salt water without the need of a big job,(sand blasting and new paint...) and what paint system do you use. I thought that with a good paint system a hull would of been good for around 20 years without major maintenance. Is that possible? The job cost him 3000$$, it doesn't make any sense to pay 3000$$ every five year... Pierre| 26246|26245|2011-07-14 16:50:12|Matt Malone|Re: Paint job|There are epoxy barrier coats that should last much longer, and well worth the money to apply to the underwater parts of the boat. One would normally put normal paint and/or antifouling over barrier coats to protect them from UV/growths. However, $3,000 sounds more like the cost of the sand blasting than the painting. Saves a lot of sanding and scraping but, expensive. I find painting inside a house tedious, but painting the bilge of a boat goes very quickly. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: piersailor@... Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:42:40 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Paint job One of my friend has a Spray 33, the boat has been in salt water for 4 years and this spring he had the under body of his hull sand blasted and repainted by professional because the hull was rusting. The paint wasn't chipped off or anything, but small bubbles of rust were popping through the paint. Is that something common? After the new paint job, the professional that did the job told him that it should be good for at least 5 year without problems. I can't believe that a good paint job only last five years...So can you guys tell me how long your boats has been in salt water without the need of a big job,(sand blasting and new paint...) and what paint system do you use. I thought that with a good paint system a hull would of been good for around 20 years without major maintenance. Is that possible? The job cost him 3000$$, it doesn't make any sense to pay 3000$$ every five year... Pierre [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26247|26215|2011-07-14 21:26:06|Darren Bos|Re: What is a good combo DC Welder / Plasma Cutter ?|Matt I have the Lotos Chinese plasma cutter, bought from this seller and I've been happy with it. This seller covers shipping both ways on a DOA unit, so there is less risk. http://cgi.ebay.ca/LOTOS-LT5000D-50A-MOST-POWERFUL-Plasma-Cutter-110-220V-/170649630395?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27bb82b6bb#ht_7378wt_1140 I haven't tried the combo machine, but before I bought the plasma cutter I did a lot of forum searching and the Lotos units seem to do as good as any of the Chinese units. http://cgi.ebay.ca/VORTEX-50A-Plasma-Cutter-200A-TIG-STICK-ARC-Welder-/170620004893?pt=BI_Welders&hash=item27b9beaa1d#ht_16385wt_1140 Most of these units seem to be coming out of the same factory. If you get one, I would recommend getting the foot pedal and some plasma consumables at the same time. My local welding shop didn't stock the plasma consumables. Also, put the machine to work in the first days, you get three days to return a DOA and most machines seem to die in the first few hours or last for years. I still get a smile on my face each time I use the plasma cutter. I only do hobby stuff and it makes things a lot more fun. Darren At 12:50 PM 14/07/2011, you wrote: > > > > >I know it has been mentioned before, but I have >forgotten. Someone mentioned a good, inexpensive >inverter-box welder that also does plasma >cutting also. I have to believe my amazing skill >with 4.0mm 7018 at 195 Amps and my complete lack >of any skill with 6011 and 6013 has to have >something to do with my current welder. So I am shopping for a DC unit. > >Matt > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26248|26215|2011-07-15 08:09:20|Kim|Re: What is a good combo DC Welder / Plasma Cutter ?|Hi Matt ... I've got a plasma-cutter/welding machine combo. It's a DC inverter type 3-in-1 unit: a 40-amp plasma cutter, 160-amp stick welder, and a 160-amp TIG welder. It's easily the best stick welder I've ever used (compared to the AC buzz-boxes I've used in the past)! Welding with it just seems "easier" and smoother somehow. Maybe that's because it's DC. Or maybe that's because it's an inverter type. I don't know. But I like it a lot! It's done every weld and cut on the Swayne 26-footer I'm building, and so far it has performed flawlessly, and hasn't missed a beat. Others who have used the welder have been similarly impressed with it. I bought it off eBay about 14 months ago for $500. It's a Chinese-made "generic" unit; but unfortunately at the moment I can't find a link to the particular one I've got (although there are numerous similar models on eBay). However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the same type of thing again. One thing you might like to keep in mind in relation to the plasma-cutting component: at 40 amps and below you can drag the cutting torch along the surface of the metal you're cutting without damaging the torch tip (ie: rest the torch tip on the metal while it's cutting), which makes the job very much easier. Above 40 amps you have to maintain a gap between the surface of the metal and the torch tip. I've used it to cut up to 8mm plate with zero problems and almost no cutting distortion. So far I've used about $50 worth of plasma-cutting consumables (cutting tips, etc). 40 amps is supposed to have enough power to cut through about 10mm ~ 12mm plate; but I haven't had to cut anything that thick with it yet. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I know it has been mentioned before, but I have forgotten. Someone mentioned a good, inexpensive inverter-box welder that also does plasma cutting also. I have to believe my amazing skill with 4.0mm 7018 at 195 Amps and my complete lack of any skill with 6011 and 6013 has to have something to do with my current welder. So I am shopping for a DC unit. > > Matt > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26249|26215|2011-07-15 14:22:44|David Frantz|Re: What is a good combo DC Welder / Plasma Cutter ?|Good info that would be better with a brand or manufactures name. The problem is the wide range with these units and the large number of Chinese manufactures making them. Plus the unfortunate reality that there are few place where you can try before you buy. As to the better welds over an AC buzz box that can be the result of many factors. DC might be helping you but with modern electronics they can control the weld arc in ways that you can't with a transformer. Generally people that have used inverter based welders are very happy with the results given a good quality welder. The only problem I have with these imported units is the crap shoot you take if you don't have prior knowledge of the devices quality. Sent from my iPad On Jul 15, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Matt ... > > I've got a plasma-cutter/welding machine combo. It's a DC inverter type 3-in-1 unit: a 40-amp plasma cutter, 160-amp stick welder, and a 160-amp TIG welder. It's easily the best stick welder I've ever used (compared to the AC buzz-boxes I've used in the past)! > > Welding with it just seems "easier" and smoother somehow. Maybe that's because it's DC. Or maybe that's because it's an inverter type. I don't know. But I like it a lot! > > It's done every weld and cut on the Swayne 26-footer I'm building, and so far it has performed flawlessly, and hasn't missed a beat. Others who have used the welder have been similarly impressed with it. > > I bought it off eBay about 14 months ago for $500. It's a Chinese-made "generic" unit; but unfortunately at the moment I can't find a link to the particular one I've got (although there are numerous similar models on eBay). However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the same type of thing again. > > One thing you might like to keep in mind in relation to the plasma-cutting component: at 40 amps and below you can drag the cutting torch along the surface of the metal you're cutting without damaging the torch tip (ie: rest the torch tip on the metal while it's cutting), which makes the job very much easier. Above 40 amps you have to maintain a gap between the surface of the metal and the torch tip. I've used it to cut up to 8mm plate with zero problems and almost no cutting distortion. So far I've used about $50 worth of plasma-cutting consumables (cutting tips, etc). 40 amps is supposed to have enough power to cut through about 10mm ~ 12mm plate; but I haven't had to cut anything that thick with it yet. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> >> >> I know it has been mentioned before, but I have forgotten. Someone mentioned a good, inexpensive inverter-box welder that also does plasma cutting also. I have to believe my amazing skill with 4.0mm 7018 at 195 Amps and my complete lack of any skill with 6011 and 6013 has to have something to do with my current welder. So I am shopping for a DC unit. >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26250|26245|2011-07-15 14:25:41|brentswain38|Re: Paint job|My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > One of my friend has a Spray 33, the boat has been in salt water for > 4 years and this spring he had the under body of his hull sand blasted and repainted by professional because the hull was rusting. The paint wasn't chipped off or anything, but small bubbles of rust were popping through the paint. Is that something common? > > After the new paint job, the professional that did the job told him that it should be good for at least 5 year without problems. > > I can't believe that a good paint job only last five years...So can you guys tell me how long your boats has been in salt water without the need of a big job,(sand blasting and new paint...) and what paint system do you use. > > I thought that with a good paint system a hull would of been good for around 20 years without major maintenance. Is that possible? > > The job cost him 3000$$, it doesn't make any sense to pay 3000$$ every five year... > > Pierre > | 26251|26215|2011-07-15 14:30:23|brentswain38|Re: What is a good combo DC Welder / Plasma Cutter ?|I've been told that some plasma tips are "Drag tips" designed to be dragged on the plate while others are not. Dragging makes controling the tip far easier. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Matt ... > > I've got a plasma-cutter/welding machine combo. It's a DC inverter type 3-in-1 unit: a 40-amp plasma cutter, 160-amp stick welder, and a 160-amp TIG welder. It's easily the best stick welder I've ever used (compared to the AC buzz-boxes I've used in the past)! > > Welding with it just seems "easier" and smoother somehow. Maybe that's because it's DC. Or maybe that's because it's an inverter type. I don't know. But I like it a lot! > > It's done every weld and cut on the Swayne 26-footer I'm building, and so far it has performed flawlessly, and hasn't missed a beat. Others who have used the welder have been similarly impressed with it. > > I bought it off eBay about 14 months ago for $500. It's a Chinese-made "generic" unit; but unfortunately at the moment I can't find a link to the particular one I've got (although there are numerous similar models on eBay). However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the same type of thing again. > > One thing you might like to keep in mind in relation to the plasma-cutting component: at 40 amps and below you can drag the cutting torch along the surface of the metal you're cutting without damaging the torch tip (ie: rest the torch tip on the metal while it's cutting), which makes the job very much easier. Above 40 amps you have to maintain a gap between the surface of the metal and the torch tip. I've used it to cut up to 8mm plate with zero problems and almost no cutting distortion. So far I've used about $50 worth of plasma-cutting consumables (cutting tips, etc). 40 amps is supposed to have enough power to cut through about 10mm ~ 12mm plate; but I haven't had to cut anything that thick with it yet. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > I know it has been mentioned before, but I have forgotten. Someone mentioned a good, inexpensive inverter-box welder that also does plasma cutting also. I have to believe my amazing skill with 4.0mm 7018 at 195 Amps and my complete lack of any skill with 6011 and 6013 has to have something to do with my current welder. So I am shopping for a DC unit. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26252|26245|2011-07-15 14:32:45|brentswain38|Re: Paint job|Sometimes tying to a dock with ac power cords in or too near the water can cause major corrosion problems. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > > > One of my friend has a Spray 33, the boat has been in salt water for > > 4 years and this spring he had the under body of his hull sand blasted and repainted by professional because the hull was rusting. The paint wasn't chipped off or anything, but small bubbles of rust were popping through the paint. Is that something common? > > > > After the new paint job, the professional that did the job told him that it should be good for at least 5 year without problems. > > > > I can't believe that a good paint job only last five years...So can you guys tell me how long your boats has been in salt water without the need of a big job,(sand blasting and new paint...) and what paint system do you use. > > > > I thought that with a good paint system a hull would of been good for around 20 years without major maintenance. Is that possible? > > > > The job cost him 3000$$, it doesn't make any sense to pay 3000$$ every five year... > > > > Pierre > > > | 26253|26245|2011-07-15 23:10:31|Matt Malone|Wasser Tar ? !|Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26254|26254|2011-07-15 23:45:45|GP|Kicker Bracket|British Columbia has a lot of coast line, much of it back bays and tight channels...some of which I believe may never have seen a breath of wind... particularly when the diesel quits. So, I have decided to put a kicker on the back and was wondering if any BS 36's out there have used a bracket that works well? There are store bought ones I see around here on run about sport fishing boats ...but they seem flimsy particularly if you want to attach a 4 stroke 9.5 which is a heavy motor. ... thanks Gary| 26255|26254|2011-07-16 05:23:09|jason ball|Re: Kicker Bracket|yeah! i am also interested in this as eclectus my bs31 is ready for a sail and i have not got the engine workin yet but i have a seagull century plus, long shaft and i am in the process of making a sweep. so any ideas on outboard brackets/mounting..are very welcome..will upload photos september time after the holidays. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26256|26254|2011-07-16 12:07:30|Donal|Re: Kicker Bracket|Would the dimensions work out that you could simply (so easy for me to write!) weld in a square tube from the cockpit floor down to where the propeller would be with a standard inboard and situate a long shaft outboard? Might work well with an old Seagull long shaft 5-blade. You'd be able to control it from the cockpit and raise it when not needed to a height just under the tiller. Danny Greene's Brazen design used something similar. While looking for some web pix of Brazen that would illustrate, I did run across this old Cruising World article on building Brazen. It doesn't show the outboard system, but does present his experience with designing and building a steel boat and convincing arguments for his modular interior that might be useful. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251114&page=2 donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > British Columbia has a lot of coast line, much of it back bays and tight channels...some of which I believe may never have seen a breath of wind... particularly when the diesel quits. So, I have decided to put a kicker on the back and was wondering if any BS 36's out there have used a bracket that works well? There are store bought ones I see around here on run about sport fishing boats ...but they seem flimsy particularly if you want to attach a 4 stroke 9.5 which is a heavy motor. > > ... thanks > Gary > | 26257|26254|2011-07-16 13:10:52|Mark Hamill|Re: Kicker Bracket|I was thinking about moving my BS 36 with an outboard attached to the transom temporarily mounted on a plywood box with a spring loaded OB bracket and built the box to have a look. Because of the rake of the transom it was a big projection. I am still interested in the idea but will try the idea of a bracket made of SS round pipe with a board with the OB attached to it that slides up and down on the rails with a block on top and using the sheet winches. I've seen a similar arrangement on other boats. I placed it so the rudder would clear it. A problem might be that as they say "anything that sticks out gets broken off" MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26258|26245|2011-07-16 13:38:41|wild_explorer|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|Interestingly, Google search for Wasser Tar gave links to several origamiboats on first page ;) http://www.svtaz.org/Taz/Haulout.06/Photo26.html http://www.svtaz.org/ I would like to hear more about "first hands" experience with Wasser Tar too. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > Matt | 26259|26254|2011-07-16 13:40:38|brentswain38|Re: Kicker Bracket|I think the slider is a far better way to go ,especially with your freeboard. A flip up doesn't lift the motor high enough to get proper access to it. 1 inch pipe for the uprights and 1 1/4 pipes on the ends of the slider are about right. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I was thinking about moving my BS 36 with an outboard attached to the transom temporarily mounted on a plywood box with a spring loaded OB bracket and built the box to have a look. Because of the rake of the transom it was a big projection. I am still interested in the idea but will try the idea of a bracket made of SS round pipe with a board with the OB attached to it that slides up and down on the rails with a block on top and using the sheet winches. I've seen a similar arrangement on other boats. I placed it so the rudder would clear it. A problem might be that as they say "anything that sticks out gets broken off" MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26260|26245|2011-07-16 13:44:37|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26261|26254|2011-07-16 13:49:23|brentswain38|Re: Kicker Bracket|Eclectus had an outboard on a slider, till she got to England and had the diesel installed. Before that she used to regularly outsail many boats , but the massive weight of the Sabb greatly reduced her light air performance. I had a similar experience after installing my Isuzu, half the weight of the Sabb. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > > yeah! i am also interested in this as eclectus my bs31�is ready for a sail and i have not got the engine workin yet but i have a seagull century plus, long shaft and i am in the process of making a sweep. so any ideas on outboard brackets/mounting..are very welcome..will upload photos september time after the holidays. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26262|26254|2011-07-16 13:54:07|brentswain38|Re: Kicker Bracket|That was done on the 31 Alex briefly owned. It has the advantage of protecting the prop by hiding it behind the skeg . It also give better steering control ,by putting the prop ahead of the rudder. The hole is a huge amount of drag , if you don't have panels to hinge down and seal it off when the outboard is raised. There may not be enough distance from the bottom of the hole to the tiller to properly raise a long shaft outboard. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Donal" wrote: > > Would the dimensions work out that you could simply (so easy for me to write!) weld in a square tube from the cockpit floor down to where the propeller would be with a standard inboard and situate a long shaft outboard? Might work well with an old Seagull long shaft 5-blade. You'd be able to control it from the cockpit and raise it when not needed to a height just under the tiller. > > Danny Greene's Brazen design used something similar. While looking for some web pix of Brazen that would illustrate, I did run across this old Cruising World article on building Brazen. It doesn't show the outboard system, but does present his experience with designing and building a steel boat and convincing arguments for his modular interior that might be useful. > > http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251114&page=2 > > donal > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > British Columbia has a lot of coast line, much of it back bays and tight channels...some of which I believe may never have seen a breath of wind... particularly when the diesel quits. So, I have decided to put a kicker on the back and was wondering if any BS 36's out there have used a bracket that works well? There are store bought ones I see around here on run about sport fishing boats ...but they seem flimsy particularly if you want to attach a 4 stroke 9.5 which is a heavy motor. > > > > ... thanks > > Gary > > > | 26263|26245|2011-07-16 14:35:25|martin demers|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|Brent, how many gallons did you used on your boat? martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26264|26254|2011-07-16 15:06:35|Darren Bos|Re: Kicker Bracket|If it is just a backup to the diesel, you might consider just lashing the dinghy alongside if the diesel should happen to fail. This works surprisingly well and since you only need to do it when things are calm the dinghy alongside isn't much of a problem. If it is too windy for the dinghy alongside, then you sail. I once pushed an 30' with a dinghy and 2hp motor, you wouldn't be setting any speed records, but three knots seems very fast compared to being stuck. Darren At 08:45 PM 15/07/2011, you wrote: > > >British Columbia has a lot of coast line, much >of it back bays and tight channels...some of >which I believe may never have seen a breath of >wind... particularly when the diesel quits. So, >I have decided to put a kicker on the back and >was wondering if any BS 36's out there have used >a bracket that works well? There are store >bought ones I see around here on run about sport >fishing boats ...but they seem flimsy >particularly if you want to attach a 4 stroke 9.5 which is a heavy motor. > >... thanks >Gary > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26265|26265|2011-07-17 12:05:37|Jonathan Stevens|Wasser MC-Tar|Do you use Wasser Tar instead of epoxy? Jonathan. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26266|26245|2011-07-17 18:17:10|martin demers|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|also Brent, did you bought wasser tar at colour your world in Canada? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26267|26245|2011-07-18 08:00:21|Kim|Re: Paint job|Hi Brent and all ... I've just been looking at the Wasser paint web site (http://www.wassercoatings.com/), after Brent mentioned them in one of his earlier posts recently. It seems their products would provide a complete all-urethane-based system for painting a steel boat. They have a 83% zinc primer to put immediately after sandblasting (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-Zinc100_W011.6_008.pdf), which they say is a "proven, high-performance, single-component, moisture-cure urethane, organic zinc-rich primer". They recommend that this be followed by 2 coats of their "MC-Tar 100" coating (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-tar100_w311.79_004.pdf) which they say is a "moisture-cure urethane technology, micaceous iron oxide, and refined tar resin to produce a superior corrosion resistant coating. MC-Tar 100 has proven performance in severe exposure, and is recommended for application on various substrates for immersion, atmospheric, and buried environments. It has the ability to provide outstanding barrier protection in one-coat or multi-coat systems". For the final topcoat, they have various matte-finish, gloss and semi-gloss paints (http://www.wassercoatings.com/topcoats.html), all of which are also urethane-based products. They even have an anti-slip deck paint (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/TruGrip8.5x11.pdf). All these urethane paints are single part paints (so no mixing errors), with a very long pot life (12 months shelf life). They can be brushed, rolled or sprayed. Alleged to be impact, abrasion, UV and weather resistant, with extremely generous overcoating times. Their recommended uses are for structural steel, work boats, bridges, offshore platforms, marine/port facilities, etc. It certainly sounds like these urethane paints would be a hell of a lot easier to use than traditional epoxy coatings. And they probably would be a lot cheaper too. And maybe a very much easier to maintain in the long run. I've had no experience with urethane paints, and I was wondering if an all-urethane coating system would provide a level of protection to a steel boat that would be as good as, or better than, the more traditional two-pack epoxy coatings? Would very much appreciate comments from anyone with experience of, or knowledge of, this. Cheers ... Kim. _______________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. _______________________________________________________ | 26268|26245|2011-07-18 13:47:04|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|I bought it from other sources, but friends said they bought theirs from Colour your world in BC. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > also Brent, > > did you bought wasser tar at colour your world in Canada? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! > > > > > > > Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. > Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. > As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26269|26245|2011-07-18 13:59:25|brentswain38|Re: Paint job|Yes I think the tar based ones can be every bit as good as epoxy and easier to use. I wouldn't go for any less than 5 coats of tar on the hull and three coats inside, more in the bilge. Using mat finish for your first colour coats , will give you better adhesion for other coats, using gloss for only the final coat. Tar tends to bleed thru the first couple of coats, so if they are mat, you can leave them for a week or more to harden up, then there will be no bleed thru on the final coats. Having any air space above the surface of remaining paint in the can drastically reduces their life, so it's best to put unused paint in smaller cans, so they can be filled completely. It will still go off in the can, but will take far longer. When I walked into Industrial Plastics in Courtenay and asked them what they charge for epoxy tar, they said $44 a litre. I went to a Cloverdale paint store right next doo, and was told $44 a gallon. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I've just been looking at the Wasser paint web site (http://www.wassercoatings.com/), after Brent mentioned them in one of his earlier posts recently. > > It seems their products would provide a complete all-urethane-based system for painting a steel boat. > > They have a 83% zinc primer to put immediately after sandblasting (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-Zinc100_W011.6_008.pdf), which they say is a "proven, high-performance, single-component, moisture-cure urethane, organic zinc-rich primer". > > They recommend that this be followed by 2 coats of their "MC-Tar 100" coating (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-tar100_w311.79_004.pdf) which they say is a "moisture-cure urethane technology, micaceous iron oxide, and refined tar resin to produce a superior corrosion resistant coating. MC-Tar 100 has proven performance in severe exposure, and is recommended for application on various substrates for immersion, atmospheric, and buried environments. It has the ability to provide outstanding barrier protection in one-coat or multi-coat systems". > > For the final topcoat, they have various matte-finish, gloss and semi-gloss paints (http://www.wassercoatings.com/topcoats.html), all of which are also urethane-based products. They even have an anti-slip deck paint (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/TruGrip8.5x11.pdf). > > All these urethane paints are single part paints (so no mixing errors), with a very long pot life (12 months shelf life). They can be brushed, rolled or sprayed. Alleged to be impact, abrasion, UV and weather resistant, with extremely generous overcoating times. Their recommended uses are for structural steel, work boats, bridges, offshore platforms, marine/port facilities, etc. > > It certainly sounds like these urethane paints would be a hell of a lot easier to use than traditional epoxy coatings. And they probably would be a lot cheaper too. And maybe a very much easier to maintain in the long run. > > I've had no experience with urethane paints, and I was wondering if an all-urethane coating system would provide a level of protection to a steel boat that would be as good as, or better than, the more traditional two-pack epoxy coatings? > > Would very much appreciate comments from anyone with experience of, or knowledge of, this. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > _______________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > _______________________________________________________ > | 26270|26254|2011-07-18 16:41:26|Matthew Dalton|Re: Kicker Bracket|I have the 31' that Alex sold. I can attest to the drag, the 9.9 I have in the hole is quite heavy so it's difficult to pull up and takes a lot of space in the cockpit (along with the fuel tank, I'll post a picture when I get a chance.) I also find my boat is ass heavy with the extra plate around the motor well, motor, lack of displacement from the hole, and gas tank right in the stern behind the well. I also added a security/standing cover for the OB motor out of steel, I use bike locks to keep the lid on as I anchor around vancouver harbor and motor thieves are common. On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > ** > > > That was done on the 31 Alex briefly owned. It has the advantage of > protecting the prop by hiding it behind the skeg . It also give better > steering control ,by putting the prop ahead of the rudder. The hole is a > huge amount of drag , if you don't have panels to hinge down and seal it off > when the outboard is raised. There may not be enough distance from the > bottom of the hole to the tiller to properly raise a long shaft outboard. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Donal" wrote: > > > > Would the dimensions work out that you could simply (so easy for me to > write!) weld in a square tube from the cockpit floor down to where the > propeller would be with a standard inboard and situate a long shaft > outboard? Might work well with an old Seagull long shaft 5-blade. You'd be > able to control it from the cockpit and raise it when not needed to a height > just under the tiller. > > > > Danny Greene's Brazen design used something similar. While looking for > some web pix of Brazen that would illustrate, I did run across this old > Cruising World article on building Brazen. It doesn't show the outboard > system, but does present his experience with designing and building a steel > boat and convincing arguments for his modular interior that might be useful. > > > > http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251114&page=2 > > > > donal > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > British Columbia has a lot of coast line, much of it back bays and > tight channels...some of which I believe may never have seen a breath of > wind... particularly when the diesel quits. So, I have decided to put a > kicker on the back and was wondering if any BS 36's out there have used a > bracket that works well? There are store bought ones I see around here on > run about sport fishing boats ...but they seem flimsy particularly if you > want to attach a 4 stroke 9.5 which is a heavy motor. > > > > > > ... thanks > > > Gary > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26271|26239|2011-07-18 21:44:48|brentswain38|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Many ketch owners I've known, have got rid of the mizzen, without changing anything else, and the boat sailed better without it. Other than the ability to fly a mizzen staysail in light airs, there is not a whole lot of advantage to a mizzen. That is why ketches have become so rare. It's also like having to rig two boats. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > are there any origami rigged as ketch? I dont remember any post mentionning ti. > any advantages? > I changed my mind about rigging my boat as a gaff rig, too much trouble. > but I see the ketch as an alternative. > | 26272|26245|2011-07-19 09:11:21|steve|Re: Paint and First Haul-out in 17 yrs/ JSDrogue|'Silas Crosby' is hauled out ,at the moment , in Valdivia ,Chile on a marine railway for a few days to change zincs , patch the epoxy barrier paint and paint antifouling. I've painted antifouling etc every year or two on the beach or a tide grid. I have been bolting on zincs , but as it is convenient I am welding these ones on. The epoxy paint on the underwater hull is now getting some blisters in patches after 17 yrs , up to about 5 cm diameter. If the top is scraped off , the steel underneath has zero corrosion , I guess because of low oxygen. The only rust was on a scratch about 10 cms below the waterline on the port side from hitting some unknown debris off Oregon. On the sail from Mexico to Easter Is. we were on port tack for 40 days or so , letting more air at that spot. Still there is very minimal pitting. At some time when blasting is easy to arrange I plan to take it back to bare steel below the waterline , but I now feel less pressure to do that. The hull below the waterline was originally blasted , painted with Devoe Bar Rust 235 and a couple of epoxy overcoats , then antifouling. As Brent says , the keel bottoms have been bare for years. A dent in the hull (from hitting a rock in Emily Carr Inlet) , well below the waterline , was quickly patched with epoxy paint between tides about 12 years ago and there is zero corrosion there. I am no expert , but blisters shouldn't necessarily mean the end of a paint job. Same with fibreglass boats , there are blisters and there are blisters that mean trouble. Incidentally , once I convinced the yard guys to remove all the support arms for the marine railway , the haul-out was easy. Not as easy as the beach , but the time pressure is a bit less. The price is pretty good here as well. One more thing , if anyone is making a Jordan Series Drogue , it is worth heat sealing all the fabric edges with a hot knife or solder gun. After 2 deployments all the cone edges were getting frayed, so another 50 hr job , and it's done. Steve -| 26273|26239|2011-07-19 10:10:35|martin demers|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Brent, I had ketch in mind to have a lower aspect ratio rig to keep center of gravity lower specially if I want to had a higher pilothouse, after my own research on the net I found out that ketches dont have the main mast that much lower than on a sloop, only 2 or 3 feet, and if you say that they are more trouble to handle I wont bother... maybe a low aspect sloop rig with a longer boom would be the way to go, what do you think? martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:12:20 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ketch rig VS bermudian Many ketch owners I've known, have got rid of the mizzen, without changing anything else, and the boat sailed better without it. Other than the ability to fly a mizzen staysail in light airs, there is not a whole lot of advantage to a mizzen. That is why ketches have become so rare. It's also like having to rig two boats. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > are there any origami rigged as ketch? I dont remember any post mentionning ti. > any advantages? > I changed my mind about rigging my boat as a gaff rig, too much trouble. > but I see the ketch as an alternative. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26274|26245|2011-07-19 14:27:09|brentswain38|Re: Paint and First Haul-out in 17 yrs/ JSDrogue|The only time I have seen any rust in those blisters was when someone put copper paint on bare steel. When hauling in Tonga, the guy was nervous the first time. The second time, he didn't bother with any support, just hauled her out. Another advantage of twin keelers is you are far more likely to be sailing with a clean bottom more of the time. Its been cold and rainy here in BC ,Steve. You aren't missing much summer here. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > > > > 'Silas Crosby' is hauled out ,at the moment , in Valdivia ,Chile on a marine railway for a few days to change zincs , patch the epoxy barrier paint and paint antifouling. > I've painted antifouling etc every year or two on the beach or a tide grid. > I have been bolting on zincs , but as it is convenient I am welding these ones on. > > The epoxy paint on the underwater hull is now getting some blisters in patches after 17 yrs , up to about 5 cm diameter. If the top is scraped off , the steel underneath has zero corrosion , I guess because of low oxygen. > The only rust was on a scratch about 10 cms below the waterline on the port side from hitting some unknown debris off Oregon. On the sail from Mexico to Easter Is. we were on port tack for 40 days or so , letting more air at that spot. Still there is very minimal pitting. > At some time when blasting is easy to arrange I plan to take it back to bare steel below the waterline , but I now feel less pressure to do that. > The hull below the waterline was originally blasted , painted with Devoe Bar Rust 235 and a couple of epoxy overcoats , then antifouling. > > As Brent says , the keel bottoms have been bare for years. > > A dent in the hull (from hitting a rock in Emily Carr Inlet) , well below the waterline , was quickly patched with epoxy paint between tides about 12 years ago and there is zero corrosion there. > I am no expert , but blisters shouldn't necessarily mean the end of a paint job. Same with fibreglass boats , there are blisters and there are blisters that mean trouble. > > Incidentally , once I convinced the yard guys to remove all the support arms for the marine railway , the haul-out was easy. Not as easy as the beach , but the time pressure is a bit less. The price is pretty good here as well. > > One more thing , if anyone is making a Jordan Series Drogue , it is worth heat sealing all the fabric edges with a hot knife or solder gun. After 2 deployments all the cone edges were getting frayed, so another 50 hr job , and it's done. > > Steve > > - > | 26275|26245|2011-07-19 14:31:00|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|When you use Wasser tar the thinners keep evaporating out, and you have to constantly keep adding thinner while using it. Otherwise , it keeps getting thicker, and the paint job keeps he getting rougher , until you end up with something looking like stucco. As long as you keep adding thinners , it can come out smooth. Have lots of thiner on hand while working with Wasser Tar. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I bought it from other sources, but friends said they bought theirs from Colour your world in BC. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > also Brent, > > > > did you bought wasser tar at colour your world in Canada? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. > > Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. > > As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > > > > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > > > > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > > > > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26276|26239|2011-07-19 14:38:32|brentswain38|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|With a ketch, you end up with a lower sail , but the mizzen itself is more weight than an extra couple of feet on the main, and the sail area on it is mostly useless anyway. Longer boom is OK , but if you have a weather helm, a longer boom will increase the weather helm. Using it as extra light air sail and reefing earlier works. Eliminating the Roach on the main helps a bit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I had ketch in mind to have a lower aspect ratio rig to keep center of gravity lower specially if I want to had a higher pilothouse, > after my own research on the net I found out that ketches dont have the main mast that much lower than on a sloop, only 2 or 3 feet, > and if you say that they are more trouble to handle I wont bother... > maybe a low aspect sloop rig with a longer boom would be the way to go, what do you think? > > martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:12:20 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ketch rig VS bermudian > > > > > > > Many ketch owners I've known, have got rid of the mizzen, without changing anything else, and the boat sailed better without it. > Other than the ability to fly a mizzen staysail in light airs, there is not a whole lot of advantage to a mizzen. That is why ketches have become so rare. It's also like having to rig two boats. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > are there any origami rigged as ketch? I dont remember any post mentionning ti. > > any advantages? > > I changed my mind about rigging my boat as a gaff rig, too much trouble. > > but I see the ketch as an alternative. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26277|26245|2011-07-19 17:22:54|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|For the quick bottom job in Tonga I used one gallon. For the entire boat, after building her, I used 30 gallons,inside and out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, how many gallons did you used on your boat? > > martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! > > > > > > > Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. > Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. > As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26278|26245|2011-07-19 18:09:25|Matt Malone|Re: Wasser Tar ? !|Wow, $1,400 and done... What is the appearance of Wasser Tar ? Is is like, tar ? Does it rub dirty, like tar or creosote does ? Does the surface seem hard or soft ? Does it have any anti-fouling affect ? Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:58:01 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! For the quick bottom job in Tonga I used one gallon. For the entire boat, after building her, I used 30 gallons,inside and out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, how many gallons did you used on your boat? > > martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:44:36 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar ? ! > > > > > > > Costs around $44 a gallon the last time I looked. Colour Your world had it last time I checked. No the haulout didn't include the cost of the wasser. That cost me $44 for the gallon I brought with me.I was given the antiofouling in Pago Pago. > Its excellent paint, one part moisture cured urethane. Being urethane , recoat time is not that important ,as it doesn't have the amine blush of epoxy ,and has a mat finish. > As it is extremely volatile ,thinners evaporate out of it rapidly. You have to have a lot of thinner on hand, and add it from time to time while using it. It will go off in the can, if you don't keep the can full, and even then it has a limited life. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Figured there had to be something cheaper than Interlux... Then Brent says Wasser Tar, I google, and go, wow, that sounds good. Anyone else have any experience with Wasser Tar ? How much does it cost ? Where is it available ? And does the $200 cover the cost of the Wasser Tar too ? > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:25:30 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Paint job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My boat has been in the water for 27 years, and has never been sandblasted. The bottoms of the keels have rarely, and only briefly, had paint of any kind on them, and they show zero corrosion. > > > > You have to be careful to never let copper come in contact with the steel; make sure you have some kind of epoxy over any steel ,before putting antifouling over it. Zincs should be welded on, to assure electrical contact. If you are not in a position to do that , a bit of stainless weld around the bolt holes, to make the contact between stainless bolts ( welded to the hull) and the zinc straps , stainless on stainless. A bit of mild steel corrosion between the zinc and the hull is enough to stop any electrical contact, making the zinc totally ineffective. > > > > I have only hauled my boat twice, in 27 years , both times in Tonga , before a 5,000 mile passage home , the first 4,000 miles hard on the wind. I simply ground the hull with an angle grinder and painted her with wasser tar, then antiflouling. Cost me $200 per haulout. > > > > Too much zinc can cause bubbling of the paint. Thinner entrapment is also a common cause, recoating too soon after painting, and launching before the thinners have had time to evaporate out. > > > > > > > > [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] | 26279|26279|2011-07-19 18:16:58|chopshopathome|painting inside of tanks?|While we are on the subject of paints.... I am at the stage of building the tanksinto the keel of my boat, and I am wondering what people are using to paint the inside of things like diesel, black water, and coolant tanks? I'm especially curious about something that wll withstand the heat of the keel cooler, and not interfere with heat transfer.| 26280|26245|2011-07-19 18:42:18|steve|Re: Paint and First Haul-out in 17 yrs/ JSDrogue|Brent , I've been hearing about the dismal summer ,so far. But there is still time for a long stretch of good weather. The winter here is a little cooler than summer in Haida Gwai and about as wet. Not bad at all. Back in the water tomorrow. Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The only time I have seen any rust in those blisters was when someone put copper paint on bare steel. > When hauling in Tonga, the guy was nervous the first time. The second time, he didn't bother with any support, just hauled her out. > Another advantage of twin keelers is you are far more likely to be sailing with a clean bottom more of the time. > Its been cold and rainy here in BC ,Steve. You aren't missing much summer here. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 'Silas Crosby' is hauled out ,at the moment , in Valdivia ,Chile on a marine railway for a few days to change zincs , patch the epoxy barrier paint and paint antifouling. > > I've painted antifouling etc every year or two on the beach or a tide grid. > > I have been bolting on zincs , but as it is convenient I am welding these ones on. > > > > The epoxy paint on the underwater hull is now getting some blisters in patches after 17 yrs , up to about 5 cm diameter. If the top is scraped off , the steel underneath has zero corrosion , I guess because of low oxygen. > > The only rust was on a scratch about 10 cms below the waterline on the port side from hitting some unknown debris off Oregon. On the sail from Mexico to Easter Is. we were on port tack for 40 days or so , letting more air at that spot. Still there is very minimal pitting. > > At some time when blasting is easy to arrange I plan to take it back to bare steel below the waterline , but I now feel less pressure to do that. > > The hull below the waterline was originally blasted , painted with Devoe Bar Rust 235 and a couple of epoxy overcoats , then antifouling. > > > > As Brent says , the keel bottoms have been bare for years. > > > > A dent in the hull (from hitting a rock in Emily Carr Inlet) , well below the waterline , was quickly patched with epoxy paint between tides about 12 years ago and there is zero corrosion there. > > I am no expert , but blisters shouldn't necessarily mean the end of a paint job. Same with fibreglass boats , there are blisters and there are blisters that mean trouble. > > > > Incidentally , once I convinced the yard guys to remove all the support arms for the marine railway , the haul-out was easy. Not as easy as the beach , but the time pressure is a bit less. The price is pretty good here as well. > > > > One more thing , if anyone is making a Jordan Series Drogue , it is worth heat sealing all the fabric edges with a hot knife or solder gun. After 2 deployments all the cone edges were getting frayed, so another 50 hr job , and it's done. > > > > Steve > > > > - > > > | 26281|26239|2011-07-19 21:13:20|Kim|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Hi Martin ... If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing sail area) you might consider something like this: http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it would be compared to a more conventional setup. Cheers ... Kim. ______________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > Brent, > > I had ketch in mind to have a lower aspect ratio rig to keep center of gravity lower specially if I want to had a higher pilothouse, > after my own research on the net I found out that ketches dont have the main mast that much lower than on a sloop, only 2 or 3 feet, > and if you say that they are more trouble to handle I wont bother... > maybe a low aspect sloop rig with a longer boom would be the way to go, what do you think? > > martin. ______________________________________________ | 26282|26245|2011-07-19 21:19:48|Kim|Re: Paint job|Many thanks for the details, Brent! This has dramatically expanded the painting options for my 26-footer when I sandblast it. Cheers ... Kim. _______________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Yes I think the tar based ones can be every bit as good as epoxy and easier to use. I wouldn't go for any less than 5 coats of tar on the hull and three coats inside, more in the bilge. Using mat finish for your first colour coats , will give you better adhesion for other coats, using gloss for only the final coat. Tar tends to bleed thru the first couple of coats, so if they are mat, you can leave them for a week or more to harden up, then there will be no bleed thru on the final coats. > Having any air space above the surface of remaining paint in the can drastically reduces their life, so it's best to put unused paint in smaller cans, so they can be filled completely. It will still go off in the can, but will take far longer. > When I walked into Industrial Plastics in Courtenay and asked them what they charge for epoxy tar, they said $44 a litre. I went to a Cloverdale paint store right next doo, and was told $44 a gallon. . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've just been looking at the Wasser paint web site (http://www.wassercoatings.com/) after Brent mentioned them in one of his earlier posts recently. > > > > It seems their products would provide a complete all-urethane-based system for painting a steel boat. > > > > They have a 83% zinc primer to put immediately after sandblasting (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-Zinc100_W011.6_008.pdf), which they say is a "proven, high-performance, single-component, moisture-cure urethane, organic zinc-rich primer". > > > > They recommend that this be followed by 2 coats of their "MC-Tar 100" coating (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/MC-tar100_w311.79_004.pdf) which they say is a "moisture-cure urethane technology, micaceous iron oxide, and refined tar resin to produce a superior corrosion resistant coating. MC-Tar 100 has proven performance in severe exposure, and is recommended for application on various substrates for immersion, atmospheric, and buried environments. It has the ability to provide outstanding barrier protection in one-coat or multi-coat systems". > > > > For the final topcoat, they have various matte-finish, gloss and semi-gloss paints (http://www.wassercoatings.com/topcoats.html), all of which are also urethane-based products. They even have an anti-slip deck paint (http://www.wassercoatings.com/docs/ProductSpecs/Data/TruGrip8.5x11.pdf). > > > > All these urethane paints are single part paints (so no mixing errors), with a very long pot life (12 months shelf life). They can be brushed, rolled or sprayed. Alleged to be impact, abrasion, UV and weather resistant, with extremely generous overcoating times. Their recommended uses are for structural steel, work boats, bridges, offshore platforms, marine/port facilities, etc. > > > > It certainly sounds like these urethane paints would be a hell of a lot easier to use than traditional epoxy coatings. And they probably would be a lot cheaper too. And maybe a very much easier to maintain in the long run. > > > > I've had no experience with urethane paints, and I was wondering if an all-urethane coating system would provide a level of protection to a steel boat that would be as good as, or better than, the more traditional two-pack epoxy coatings? > > > > Would very much appreciate comments from anyone with experience of, or knowledge of, this. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > _______________________________________________________ | 26283|26283|2011-07-19 21:54:02|aguysailing|Shaft Seal|Anyone using the dripless shaft seal instead of a stuffing box? Just wondering about a good brand to take a look at. Also... I will shortly need a new prop shaft. Anyone know of a good source for these in BC? As far as a shaft goes, I heard that a "keyed" coupling instead of the usual "set" screws is the best way to go... ?? Wherever you are, hope your weather has been better than the very drippy weather here on the BC coasts (known as the bummer summer or the summer that isn't by local media)... Gary| 26284|26283|2011-07-19 22:11:57|Paul Thompson|Re: Shaft Seal|I've had a PSS shaft seal for 20 years now with no problems. Highly recommended see http://www.shaftseal.com/en/categories and yes, a keyed shaft is very much better than the grub screw type. Paul Thompson On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:53 PM, aguysailing wrote: > Anyone using the dripless shaft seal instead of a stuffing box? Just wondering about a good brand to take a look at. > > Also... I will shortly need a new prop shaft.  Anyone know of a good source for these in BC? > > As far as a shaft goes, I heard that a "keyed" coupling instead of the usual "set" screws is the best way to go... ?? > > Wherever you are, hope your weather has been better than the very drippy weather here on the BC coasts (known as the bummer summer or the summer that isn't by local media)... > > Gary | 26285|26239|2011-07-19 23:18:04|Ben Okopnik|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:13:09AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > Hi Martin ... > > If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing > sail area) you might consider something like this: > > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html Heh. That's actually my friend Bob - the guy whose electrical motor experience I've been citing here. > That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually > increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; > but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental > gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it > would be compared to a more conventional setup. Bob is a professional boat builder, and is pretty good at it: he's the ex-owner of the Bolger-designed "Loose Moose II", which (if I recall correctly) he built himself and which Bolger proudly described in his "Boats with an Open Mind". I haven't even looked at the above rig, but I'd be willing to lay money that you won't find anything less than sturdy or well thought out in one of Bob's boats. If you wanted to follow his example with the rig, contacting him for details would probably be a good idea. 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| 26286|26283|2011-07-19 23:27:35|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:53:31AM -0000, aguysailing wrote: > Anyone using the dripless shaft seal instead of a stuffing box? Just > wondering about a good brand to take a look at. PSS shaft seal. Had it on my previous boat (7 years) and installed one on "Ulysses", too. It's literally a one-time deal: install and forget about it forever (well, they recommend replacing the bellows every ten years, but the one on "Ulysses" is about that old and still looks brand new.) No more twisting yourself into a pretzel to dig out the packing while water squirts everywhere... For $250, I bought myself at least 10 years of no maintenance in that area. Money well spent, in my opinion. > As far as a shaft goes, I heard that a "keyed" coupling instead of the > usual "set" screws is the best way to go... ?? Only if you want it to be reliable. :) I know of people who have gone through pure hell in remote places because their set screws wouldn't hold any 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| 26287|26239|2011-07-20 00:58:37|Kim|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Hi Ben ... I have a look at your friend Bob's blog most days (http://boatbits.blogspot.com). It's usually quite interesting. :-) He certainly seems *extremely* happy with the electric propulsion he's fitted to his boat! He's actually inspired me to start (very) seriously thinking about using an electric motor to turn the prop in my Swayne 26. For my boat, the cost of an electric propululsion system (including the electric motor, batteries and sufficient solar panels) would cost no more (probably less) than a new 12HP diesel. Someone with an electric-driven yacht in Sydney did some experiments, and found that a single 100W solar panel would provide sufficient power to motor for about 2 hours per week. (The east coast of Australia is mostly sunny most of the time; but usually not windy enough to make wind generators worthwhile.) I think I'll be able to fit 3 x 200W solar panels to my boat. So the question I've got to answer for myself is: would I need to motor more than 12 hours each week? If not, then I wouldn't have to buy fuel again for the rest of my life!!! And, of course, solar panels are becoming cheaper and more efficient by the day. I think your friend Bob also has a small petrol generator to top-up his batteries when necessary, and I understand that motoring range has consequently never been an issue for him. The rig on his Cal-34 is indeed very interesting! Except for the running backstays, I like it a lot. Cheers ... Kim. ________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:13:09AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > Hi Martin ... > > > > If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing > > sail area) you might consider something like this: > > > > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html > > Heh. That's actually my friend Bob - the guy whose electrical motor > experience I've been citing here. > > > That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually > > increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; > > but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental > > gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it > > would be compared to a more conventional setup. > > Bob is a professional boat builder, and is pretty good at it: he's the > ex-owner of the Bolger-designed "Loose Moose II", which (if I recall > correctly) he built himself and which Bolger proudly described in his > "Boats with an Open Mind". I haven't even looked at the above rig, but > I'd be willing to lay money that you won't find anything less than > sturdy or well thought out in one of Bob's boats. > > If you wanted to follow his example with the rig, contacting him for > details would probably be a good idea. > > > 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 ________________________________________________ | 26288|26239|2011-07-20 06:20:09|Paul Wilson|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|I am not so sure about the rig. The swept back stays will chafe like hell on the mainsail and you won't be able to have the boom fully out which really robs you of some speed going downwind. The full battens will be hard spots on the sail and make the chafe even worse. I sailed on a catamaran with a similar rig and we had to keep the main no more than half way out going downwind or the sail would have chafed through in less than 2000 miles. Full batten mainsails are very expensive. Used or mass produced Cal 34 sails should be cheap and you rob yourself of this opportunity when you change the rig. Cheers, Paul On 7/20/2011 4:58 PM, Kim wrote: > > > Hi Ben ... > > I have a look at your friend Bob's blog most days > (http://boatbits.blogspot.com). It's usually quite interesting. :-) > > He certainly seems *extremely* happy with the electric propulsion he's > fitted to his boat! He's actually inspired me to start (very) > seriously thinking about using an electric motor to turn the prop in > my Swayne 26. > > For my boat, the cost of an electric propululsion system (including > the electric motor, batteries and sufficient solar panels) would cost > no more (probably less) than a new 12HP diesel. Someone with an > electric-driven yacht in Sydney did some experiments, and found that a > single 100W solar panel would provide sufficient power to motor for > about 2 hours per week. (The east coast of Australia is mostly sunny > most of the time; but usually not windy enough to make wind generators > worthwhile.) I think I'll be able to fit 3 x 200W solar panels to my > boat. So the question I've got to answer for myself is: would I need > to motor more than 12 hours each week? If not, then I wouldn't have to > buy fuel again for the rest of my life!!! And, of course, solar panels > are becoming cheaper and more efficient by the day. I think your > friend Bob also has a small petrol generator to top-up his batteries > when necessary, and I understand that motoring range has consequently > never been an issue for him. > > The rig on his Cal-34 is indeed very interesting! Except for the > running backstays, I like it a lot. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > ________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:13:09AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin ... > > > > > > If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing > > > sail area) you might consider something like this: > > > > > > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html > > > > Heh. That's actually my friend Bob - the guy whose electrical motor > > experience I've been citing here. > > > > > That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually > > > increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; > > > but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental > > > gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it > > > would be compared to a more conventional setup. > > > > Bob is a professional boat builder, and is pretty good at it: he's the > > ex-owner of the Bolger-designed "Loose Moose II", which (if I recall > > correctly) he built himself and which Bolger proudly described in his > > "Boats with an Open Mind". I haven't even looked at the above rig, but > > I'd be willing to lay money that you won't find anything less than > > sturdy or well thought out in one of Bob's boats. > > > > If you wanted to follow his example with the rig, contacting him for > > details would probably be a good idea. > > > > > > 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 > ________________________________________________ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3773 - Release Date: 07/18/11 > | 26289|26239|2011-07-20 07:58:15|loosemoosefilmworks|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Just a couple of quick notes on the rig in question... Mark Smaalders designed the rig for us as a trial for his new Simplicity design (http://www.smaalders.net/yacht_design/drawingboard.htm). The shrouds are on the same plane as the original CAL 34 rig the only difference is that they have been moved out to the sides of the boat. Running backs are not problematic if you plan for them and Smaalders has no shortage of experience and the twin vangs plus a boom brake make an unintended gybe less of a problem than it might be on a normal boat. Battens as well are non problematic and if designed/built correctly they neither chafe or cause problems. As far as all those great deals on used CAL 34 sails... Lots of old and worn sails out there for a lot more than they are worth. Since we build our own sails and are Caribbean based (IE shipping used sails down sometimes costs more than the sails)there really is no cost advantage to staying with the old rig... As far as how it all works... We've gained some speed on all points of sail while heeling less and and being stiffer. Being a cutter really suits the CAL 34... May not be for everyone but we are very happy with Mark Smaalders and his rig. All the best Bob http://boatbits.blogspot.com/ http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/ http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/| 26290|26265|2011-07-20 10:27:43|brentswain38|Re: Wasser MC-Tar|Yes, whatever is cheaper. Their performance is about the same, as long as you stick to the tar based stuff.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Stevens" wrote: > > Do you use Wasser Tar instead of epoxy? > Jonathan. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26291|26239|2011-07-20 10:34:25|Matt Malone|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|That rig he put on the Cal is half way between a gaff and a sloop. I suspect he has little control over the sail twist and in the widest part of the roach at the top, it twists more down-wind, reducing the useful sail pressure. Therefore, the sail area is not being used as efficiently as a sloop. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:13:09 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ketch rig VS bermudian Hi Martin ... If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing sail area) you might consider something like this: http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it would be compared to a more conventional setup. Cheers ... Kim. ______________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > Brent, > > I had ketch in mind to have a lower aspect ratio rig to keep center of gravity lower specially if I want to had a higher pilothouse, > after my own research on the net I found out that ketches dont have the main mast that much lower than on a sloop, only 2 or 3 feet, > and if you say that they are more trouble to handle I wont bother... > maybe a low aspect sloop rig with a longer boom would be the way to go, what do you think? > > martin. ______________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26292|26245|2011-07-20 11:42:56|Donal|Re: Paint and First Haul-out in 17 yrs/ JSDrogue|Steve, Did you make your Drogue from a Sailrite kit? We recently built all the cones/webbing and are ready to attach them to the rope. Do I need to get out the heat gun? Would appreciate stories of the two deployments. donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > One more thing , if anyone is making a Jordan Series Drogue , it is worth heat sealing all the fabric edges with a hot knife or solder gun. After 2 deployments all the cone edges were getting frayed, so another 50 hr job , and it's done. | 26293|26239|2011-07-20 11:52:35|martin demers|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|the main sail makes me think of the ones used on those big trimaran that race around the globe. martin > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:33:09 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: ketch rig VS bermudian > > > > That rig he put on the Cal is half way between a gaff and a sloop. I suspect he has little control over the sail twist and in the widest part of the roach at the top, it twists more down-wind, reducing the useful sail pressure. Therefore, the sail area is not being used as efficiently as a sloop. > > Matt > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:13:09 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ketch rig VS bermudian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin ... > > > > If your aim is to have a lower mast height (but without sacrificing sail area) you might consider something like this: > > > > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-rig-ongoing_30.html > > > > That guy reduced his mast height on a Cal-34 by 7ft; but actually increased the sail area! The rig looks pretty simple and easy to use; but handling the running backstays might be a nuisance (accidental gybes in strong winds would be interesting). Don't know how sturdy it would be compared to a more conventional setup. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I had ketch in mind to have a lower aspect ratio rig to keep center of gravity lower specially if I want to had a higher pilothouse, > > > after my own research on the net I found out that ketches dont have the main mast that much lower than on a sloop, only 2 or 3 feet, > > > and if you say that they are more trouble to handle I wont bother... > > > maybe a low aspect sloop rig with a longer boom would be the way to go, what do you think? > > > > > > 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]| 26294|26239|2011-07-20 17:53:32|Kim|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Thanks for the feedback on your rig, Bob. A couple of further questions about it: Do you always release the leeward running backstay when running downwind (or even on a broad reach)? Would you say the rig is more difficult to handle if you were singlehanding your boat (compared to the rig you had previously)? Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" wrote: > > Just a couple of quick notes on the rig in question... > > Mark Smaalders designed the rig for us as a trial for his new Simplicity design (http://www.smaalders.net/yacht_design/drawingboard.htm). > > The shrouds are on the same plane as the original CAL 34 rig the only difference is that they have been moved out to the sides of the boat. > > Running backs are not problematic if you plan for them and Smaalders has no shortage of experience and the twin vangs plus a boom brake make an unintended gybe less of a problem than it might be on a normal boat. > > Battens as well are non problematic and if designed/built correctly they neither chafe or cause problems. > > As far as all those great deals on used CAL 34 sails... Lots of old and worn sails out there for a lot more than they are worth. Since we build our own sails and are Caribbean based (IE shipping used sails down sometimes costs more than the sails)there really is no cost advantage to staying with the old rig... > > As far as how it all works... We've gained some speed on all points of sail while heeling less and and being stiffer. Being a cutter really suits the CAL 34... > > May not be for everyone but we are very happy with Mark Smaalders and his rig. > > All the best > > Bob > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/ > http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/ > http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/ ______________________________________________________________ | 26295|26245|2011-07-20 23:11:52|steve|JSDrogue|Donal , yes , I built it from a Sailrite Kit. Unless they have changed their fabric cutting method , I would go to the trouble of heatsealing the edges. It seems like a small detail for something that will possibly never be used. Now that I have used it , my threshold for deploying it will be less. In other words I can see using it in cases of gear failure , fatigue, etc where a break is needed and as an alternative to heaving-to. There is a South African 44' catamaran here in Valdivia who just came down from Brazil and around the Horn. He has just ordered a fully made up JSD from Ace Sails to have on board for the rest of his cruising. I have been talking to a lot of people , especially in the past year, about their storm tactics in small boats. Most people plan to heave-to or keep sailing , a few will ly-ahull(yikes) , and many say that when things get really hairy they plan to run before it and maybe deploy some warps off the stern with or without tires on the end. There are a surprising number of people that either have been knocked down , or accept that eventually a knockdown is inevitable.Lots of stories of masts hitting the water and sharp things embedded in the cabin overhead. I read somewhere that when the sea height is 1/3 of the vessel's waterline length , there is risk of knockdown. Of course that would depend on several other factors as well , but that is not a big sea , only 10' in my boat. You'd never get anywhere if you chucked out a drogue every time the seas grew to 10'. But I guess that is when the thought starts crossing my mind. I would really prefer never to be knocked down. At minimum it makes a real mess, and often causes significant gear damage or crew injury. I am sure that a knockdown or worse is possible with a JSD , but so far none have been reported. Here is the text that I posted on another site a couple of months ago: "I was able to deploy a Series Drogue twice on a recent trip from Easter Is. to Valdivia ,Chile. It is an excellent piece of gear. 124 cones from a Sailrite kit. The attachment on my boat , a 36' steel built to a Brent Swain design aka Louis Riel , is to 1/2" SS chain plates that I welded on edge to the top of SS samson posts that are welded to and through the deck onto the hull. The large galv thimbles in the bridle are shackled to the chainplates. There was no chafe. If there had been I would expect failure very quickly. Lots of movement , stretching ,pitching and some yawing (too much gear windage on our boat). Even in the relatively moderate conditions we experienced , the load on the gear was big. The bridle lines came bar taut and water squirted out of the rope. The conditions on the first deployment were 35 -40 knots with steep breaking seas. No risk of pitchpoling but certainly of knockdown. We slowed from 6k with no sail up to 2.5k with the drogue out. Had a good night's sleep It was easy to deploy and really quite easy to retrieve. I had tied on a 30' piece of line from the boat to the outboard end of the bridle to help retrieve. The retrieval took about 20 minutes in 12' seas and 15 - 20 k wind. Because it was so easy the first time, we deployed it a second time just a day away from arrival in Valdivia when a very energetic front passed over us. The baro went from 1015mb to 985 in about 18 hrs. It blew hard. A lot of tree and other damage ashore , 70 miles away. However it didn't last more than 2 hrs and we retrieved the drogue this time in 25 - 30 knots of wind , again surprisingly easy. I had forgotten to tie on the retrieval line ,but a series of rolling hitches added about 10 minutes to the process. Brent has suggested using the bridle line in some situations to make the bridle asymmetrical which would present the stern at an angle and reduce rolling. In our case the rolling became uncomfortable when the wind backed off in the wee hours of the morning. The edges of the fabric cone are now a little frayed so I will now heatseal with a solder gun , another good winter project by the heater. This JSD will be something I will use in much less than survival conditions, as well as in more severe conditions. We were able to get some video of the deployment which will go onto our website when editing is done." End of quote. Tonight we are back in the water after bottom painting , and it blowing a full mid-winter gale up the river in Valdivia. The little Sigmar heater keeps it cosy though. It has warmed up to 10 degr C with the frontal passage , from zero degr this morning. Steve| 26296|26239|2011-07-20 23:24:09|Matt Malone|KIm's Boat|I looked at every one of Kim's photos, again. Absolutely incredible step-by-step documentation that gives the reader a clear idea of the steps. And the boat is really coming along. Your acceptance criterion slide at the start was great. Of course, everyone's desires are a bit different, but the point is the path appears well-beaten and easy to follow, but still a commitment to one project for a sustained period. >My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht After looking at all of Kim's photos, of course everyone is thinking how they would stretch, squeeze or modify things. I encourage everyone to flip through them again. Thank you for the rush of ideas Kim. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26297|26239|2011-07-21 00:28:04|Kim|Re: KIm's Boat|Many thanks for your kind words, Matt! Glad you like the photos! When I started building my boat I struggled to get my head around the origami building construction method, and indeed if it wasn't for Alex's videos I would have been completely lost. So I started the photo site in the hope that it might help others who might be in the same position I was at the beginning. Plus it's a resource for far-flung family members of mine who kept asking "how's the boat going?"! :-) Brent's design is extraordinarily easy to build (compared to the others I've done). This one is taking a while because I effectively can only work on it about 1 day each week, and I'm mostly doing it alone. In the meantime it's an enjoyable pastime; but it will be awesome when it hits the water! :-) Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > I looked at every one of Kim's photos, again. Absolutely incredible step-by-step documentation that gives the reader a clear idea of the steps. And the boat is really coming along. Your acceptance criterion slide at the start was great. Of course, everyone's desires are a bit different, but the point is the path appears well-beaten and easy to follow, but still a commitment to one project for a sustained period. > > >My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > After looking at all of Kim's photos, of course everyone is thinking > how they would stretch, squeeze or modify things. I encourage everyone to flip through them again. > > Thank you for the rush of ideas Kim. > > Matt ______________________________________________________________ | 26298|26239|2011-07-21 05:00:20|boatwayupnorth|Re: KIm's Boat|I want to second Matt. You are doing a wonderful job documenting your meticulous build. Seems you have to think of how to get her to the water pretty soon? Regards Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I looked at every one of Kim's photos, again. Absolutely incredible step-by-step documentation that gives the reader a clear idea of the steps. And the boat is really coming along. Your acceptance criterion slide at the start was great. Of course, everyone's desires are a bit different, but the point is the path appears well-beaten and easy to follow, but still a commitment to one project for a sustained period. > > > >My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > After looking at all of Kim's photos, of course everyone is thinking > how they would stretch, squeeze or modify things. I encourage everyone to flip through them again. > > Thank you for the rush of ideas Kim. > > Matt > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26299|26239|2011-07-21 08:14:38|loosemoosefilmworks|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|> A couple of further questions about it: Do you always release the leeward running backstay when running downwind (or even on a broad reach)? Yes... It's simple and only takes a second. On a broad reach yes as well but more for the possibility of chafe rather than need. > Would you say the rig is more difficult to handle if you were singlehanding your boat (compared to the rig you had previously)? About the same... The staysail is set up for self tacking so there is only the jib to sheet. The full battened main is a lot more docile than the old main. The running backs are no work at all... I should add that vangs/preventers and a boom brake are always in use but that was SOP with the old rig as well... Bob http://boatbits.blogspot.com/ http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/ http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/| 26300|26239|2011-07-21 17:56:09|Kim|Re: KIm's Boat|Thanks Walter! Glad you like the photos too! There's very little effort on my part in putting the photos up, and curiously the site gets a *lot* of hits from all over the World (sometimes 1000's/day). I didn't expect that would happen. I'd say there's a huge amount of interest out there in the origami boatbuilding method. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > I want to second Matt. You are doing a wonderful job documenting your meticulous build. Seems you have to think of how to get her to the water pretty soon? > Regards > Walter ______________________________________________________________ | 26301|26239|2011-07-21 17:57:37|Kim|Re: ketch rig VS bermudian|Thanks Bob. Very interesting indeed! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" wrote: > > > A couple of further questions about it: Do you always release the leeward running backstay when running downwind (or even on a broad reach)? > > Yes... It's simple and only takes a second. On a broad reach yes as well but more for the possibility of chafe rather than need. > > > Would you say the rig is more difficult to handle if you were singlehanding your boat (compared to the rig you had previously)? > > About the same... The staysail is set up for self tacking so there is only the jib to sheet. The full battened main is a lot more docile than the old main. The running backs are no work at all... > > I should add that vangs/preventers and a boom brake are always in use but that was SOP with the old rig as well... > > Bob > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/ > http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/ > http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/ ______________________________________________________________ | 26302|26245|2011-07-21 21:14:44|Kim|Re: JSDrogue|Hi Steve ... Your reports and videos on your experiences with the JSD are very informative. Thanks! It seems to me that with a steel yacht, which can be sealed up "like a pressure cooker" (as Brent says), and a JSD, then it would be reasonable to expect to come out the end of even the most horrendous conditions safely. In my little 26-footer it would be unbelievably uncomfortable in extreme weather; but that wouldn't matter if you were confident that the boat was probably going to be OK. I guess most sailors don't experience "survival" conditions very often; but it would be very comforting to know that there was a JSD in the locker just in case. For example: in all my years of (coastal) sailing, I've only ever been in one really bad storm. We were in an Adams-designed 36-footer. The waves seemed much higher than the mast, were pretty close together, and were regularly completely burying the boat. I was shit scared, as was everyone else on board! The next day the weather was completely calm again; but we sure could have used a JSD during that storm! Another drogue device that was invented and is sold in Australia is the "Sea Brake": http://www.seabrake.com/ It's not an ordinary drogue (like a tyre or something similar); but it's supposed to selectively apply load only when required. It seems to be made of very heavy canvas, and may be easier to retreive than a JSD. I know a couple of people who have bought these; but they haven't had to use them yet. Anyway, Steve, even though you may not have used a "Sea Brake", I nevertheless would be most interested in your opinion of how effective you think they might be compared to a JSD. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > Donal , > yes , I built it from a Sailrite Kit. Unless they have changed their fabric cutting method , I would go to the trouble of heatsealing the edges. It seems like a small detail for something that will possibly never be used. Now that I have used it , my threshold for deploying it will be less. In other words I can see using it in cases of gear failure , fatigue, etc where a break is needed and as an alternative to heaving-to. > There is a South African 44' catamaran here in Valdivia who just came down from Brazil and around the Horn. He has just ordered a fully made up JSD from Ace Sails to have on board for the rest of his cruising. > > I have been talking to a lot of people , especially in the past year, about their storm tactics in small boats. Most people plan to heave-to or keep sailing , a few will ly-ahull(yikes) , and many say that when things get really hairy they plan to run before it and maybe deploy some warps off the stern with or without tires on the end. > There are a surprising number of people that either have been knocked down , or accept that eventually a knockdown is inevitable.Lots of stories of masts hitting the water and sharp things embedded in the cabin overhead. > I read somewhere that when the sea height is 1/3 of the vessel's waterline length , there is risk of knockdown. Of course that would depend on several other factors as well , but that is not a big sea , only 10' in my boat. You'd never get anywhere if you chucked out a drogue every time the seas grew to 10'. But I guess that is when the thought starts crossing my mind. > I would really prefer never to be knocked down. At minimum it makes a real mess, and often causes significant gear damage or crew injury. > > I am sure that a knockdown or worse is possible with a JSD , but so far none have been reported. > > Here is the text that I posted on another site a couple of months ago: > > "I was able to deploy a Series Drogue twice on a recent trip from Easter Is. to Valdivia ,Chile. It is an excellent piece of gear. 124 cones from a Sailrite kit. > The attachment on my boat , a 36' steel built to a Brent Swain design aka Louis Riel , is to 1/2" SS chain plates that I welded on edge to the top of SS samson posts that are welded to and through the deck onto the hull. The large galv thimbles in the bridle are shackled to the chainplates. There was no chafe. If there had been I would expect failure very quickly. Lots of movement , stretching ,pitching and some yawing (too much gear windage on our boat). > Even in the relatively moderate conditions we experienced , the load on the gear was big. The bridle lines came bar taut and water squirted out of the rope. > The conditions on the first deployment were 35 -40 knots with steep breaking seas. No risk of pitchpoling but certainly of knockdown. We slowed from 6k with no sail up to 2.5k with the drogue out. Had a good night's sleep > It was easy to deploy and really quite easy to retrieve. I had tied on a 30' piece of line from the boat to the outboard end of the bridle to help retrieve. The retrieval took about 20 minutes in 12' seas and 15 - 20 k wind. > Because it was so easy the first time, we deployed it a second time just a day away from arrival in Valdivia when a very energetic front passed over us. The baro went from 1015mb to 985 in about 18 hrs. It blew hard. A lot of tree and other damage ashore , 70 miles away. However it didn't last more than 2 hrs and we retrieved the drogue this time in 25 - 30 knots of wind , again surprisingly easy. I had forgotten to tie on the retrieval line ,but a series of rolling hitches added about 10 minutes to the process. > Brent has suggested using the bridle line in some situations to make the bridle asymmetrical which would present the stern at an angle and reduce rolling. In our case the rolling became uncomfortable when the wind backed off in the wee hours of the morning. > The edges of the fabric cone are now a little frayed so I will now heatseal with a solder gun , another good winter project by the heater. > This JSD will be something I will use in much less than survival conditions, as well as in more severe > conditions. > > We were able to get some video of the deployment which will go onto our website when editing is done." End of quote. > > Tonight we are back in the water after bottom painting , and it blowing a full mid-winter gale up the river in Valdivia. > The little Sigmar heater keeps it cosy though. It has warmed up to 10 degr C with the frontal passage , from zero degr this morning. > Steve ______________________________________________________________ | 26303|26245|2011-07-21 22:19:52|steve|Re: JSDrogue|Kim , the Seabrake is about 1/4 the price of a JSD ( I am comparing the price of a finished JSD including the 350' of good line, whereas I assume the the price of the Seabrake does not include the line , bridle or other hardware). It is much more multi purpose. It is probably easier to stow , deploy , and retrieve, I am guessing than the JSD. The only advantage I can see for a JSD over a Seabrake is that the Seabrake theoretically , in extreme conditions, could get thrown forward in a wave ,losing its drogue effect. The idea of the JSD is that it is always in at least two waves at a time so providing continuous drag. That, I think ,is what Donald Jordan was talking about. But I might be talking about how many pins can dance on the head of an angel.Or something like that. Your boat is certainly looking good.Now is the time to weld on a couple of tangs for a bridle if that's what you decide.Actually I guess you can do that anytime ,on the SS samson posts. Where is your boat ? Here in Valdivia there are several steel sailboats under 30' owned by locals. I plan to post some photos of them soon. There is also a sistership to the Hiscock's second to last boat (Wanderer IV ?) , the steel centre cockpit 47' job they had built in Holland. It was a reported disaster. This boat here was bought by Sr. Moller in a sad state and he parked it beside his professional machine/fabricating shop in Valdivia and rebuilt it over 4 yrs. It looks pretty good now and he uses it for summer holiday cruises down to the Patagonian Channels. Has the original 3 cyl Detroit Diesel, over 40 yrs old , noisy but smooth , he says. The good thing about that storm you were in , is that it will be hard to find any worse , so that's one less thing to worry about. Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Steve ... > > Your reports and videos on your experiences with the JSD are very informative. Thanks! > > It seems to me that with a steel yacht, which can be sealed up "like a pressure cooker" (as Brent says), and a JSD, then it would be reasonable to expect to come out the end of even the most horrendous conditions safely. In my little 26-footer it would be unbelievably uncomfortable in extreme weather; but that wouldn't matter if you were confident that the boat was probably going to be OK. > > I guess most sailors don't experience "survival" conditions very often; but it would be very comforting to know that there was a JSD in the locker just in case. For example: in all my years of (coastal) sailing, I've only ever been in one really bad storm. We were in an Adams-designed 36-footer. The waves seemed much higher than the mast, were pretty close together, and were regularly completely burying the boat. I was shit scared, as was everyone else on board! The next day the weather was completely calm again; but we sure could have used a JSD during that storm! > > Another drogue device that was invented and is sold in Australia is the "Sea Brake": http://www.seabrake.com/ It's not an ordinary drogue (like a tyre or something similar); but it's supposed to selectively apply load only when required. It seems to be made of very heavy canvas, and may be easier to retreive than a JSD. I know a couple of people who have bought these; but they haven't had to use them yet. > > Anyway, Steve, even though you may not have used a "Sea Brake", I nevertheless would be most interested in your opinion of how effective you think they might be compared to a JSD. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > > > Donal , > > yes , I built it from a Sailrite Kit. Unless they have changed their fabric cutting method , I would go to the trouble of heatsealing the edges. It seems like a small detail for something that will possibly never be used. Now that I have used it , my threshold for deploying it will be less. In other words I can see using it in cases of gear failure , fatigue, etc where a break is needed and as an alternative to heaving-to. > > There is a South African 44' catamaran here in Valdivia who just came down from Brazil and around the Horn. He has just ordered a fully made up JSD from Ace Sails to have on board for the rest of his cruising. > > > > I have been talking to a lot of people , especially in the past year, about their storm tactics in small boats. Most people plan to heave-to or keep sailing , a few will ly-ahull(yikes) , and many say that when things get really hairy they plan to run before it and maybe deploy some warps off the stern with or without tires on the end. > > There are a surprising number of people that either have been knocked down , or accept that eventually a knockdown is inevitable.Lots of stories of masts hitting the water and sharp things embedded in the cabin overhead. > > I read somewhere that when the sea height is 1/3 of the vessel's waterline length , there is risk of knockdown. Of course that would depend on several other factors as well , but that is not a big sea , only 10' in my boat. You'd never get anywhere if you chucked out a drogue every time the seas grew to 10'. But I guess that is when the thought starts crossing my mind. > > I would really prefer never to be knocked down. At minimum it makes a real mess, and often causes significant gear damage or crew injury. > > > > I am sure that a knockdown or worse is possible with a JSD , but so far none have been reported. > > > > Here is the text that I posted on another site a couple of months ago: > > > > "I was able to deploy a Series Drogue twice on a recent trip from Easter Is. to Valdivia ,Chile. It is an excellent piece of gear. 124 cones from a Sailrite kit. > > The attachment on my boat , a 36' steel built to a Brent Swain design aka Louis Riel , is to 1/2" SS chain plates that I welded on edge to the top of SS samson posts that are welded to and through the deck onto the hull. The large galv thimbles in the bridle are shackled to the chainplates. There was no chafe. If there had been I would expect failure very quickly. Lots of movement , stretching ,pitching and some yawing (too much gear windage on our boat). > > Even in the relatively moderate conditions we experienced , the load on the gear was big. The bridle lines came bar taut and water squirted out of the rope. > > The conditions on the first deployment were 35 -40 knots with steep breaking seas. No risk of pitchpoling but certainly of knockdown. We slowed from 6k with no sail up to 2.5k with the drogue out. Had a good night's sleep > > It was easy to deploy and really quite easy to retrieve. I had tied on a 30' piece of line from the boat to the outboard end of the bridle to help retrieve. The retrieval took about 20 minutes in 12' seas and 15 - 20 k wind. > > Because it was so easy the first time, we deployed it a second time just a day away from arrival in Valdivia when a very energetic front passed over us. The baro went from 1015mb to 985 in about 18 hrs. It blew hard. A lot of tree and other damage ashore , 70 miles away. However it didn't last more than 2 hrs and we retrieved the drogue this time in 25 - 30 knots of wind , again surprisingly easy. I had forgotten to tie on the retrieval line ,but a series of rolling hitches added about 10 minutes to the process. > > Brent has suggested using the bridle line in some situations to make the bridle asymmetrical which would present the stern at an angle and reduce rolling. In our case the rolling became uncomfortable when the wind backed off in the wee hours of the morning. > > The edges of the fabric cone are now a little frayed so I will now heatseal with a solder gun , another good winter project by the heater. > > This JSD will be something I will use in much less than survival conditions, as well as in more severe > > conditions. > > > > We were able to get some video of the deployment which will go onto our website when editing is done." End of quote. > > > > Tonight we are back in the water after bottom painting , and it blowing a full mid-winter gale up the river in Valdivia. > > The little Sigmar heater keeps it cosy though. It has warmed up to 10 degr C with the frontal passage , from zero degr this morning. > > Steve > ______________________________________________________________ > | 26304|26239|2011-07-22 00:56:17|Matt Malone|Re: KIm's Boat|Kim, The quality of your website draws people to look more, most of those hits are probably 2nd and 3rd clicks. What gets people there in the first place is the number of people who share the dream. If I lived on a half an acre, I would build an orgami. Unfortunately, my rural property has no power (water, sewer, telephone, mail, or garbage pickup), it is quite a drive and I am not there enough. I had to start with something more complete to suit my schedule. BTW, what are you using to weld stainless to mild, and stainless to stainless ? Your sampson posts are giving me ideas: the inch of fibreglass and good backing plates should hold it. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:56:00 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: KIm's Boat Thanks Walter! Glad you like the photos too! There's very little effort on my part in putting the photos up, and curiously the site gets a *lot* of hits from all over the World (sometimes 1000's/day). I didn't expect that would happen. I'd say there's a huge amount of interest out there in the origami boatbuilding method. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > I want to second Matt. You are doing a wonderful job documenting your meticulous build. Seems you have to think of how to get her to the water pretty soon? > Regards > Walter __________________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26305|26245|2011-07-22 01:16:17|Kim|Re: JSDrogue|Thanks for the info, Steve. Your point about the JSD always working in both of the two waves (or more) behind you, and thus never being able to lose its drogue effect, is a very good one. I guess its guaranteed ability to do that is unique among the many different drogue types. Yes, "Wanderer IV" was Eric Hiscock's first (and only) steel boat. I remember reading in one of his books that he hated it - it was apparently too big, and a maintenance nightmare for him! Maybe his attitude towards steel boats might have been different had he built an origamiboat, had they been around back then! :-) I'm building in Brisbane, Australia. Cheers ... Kim. ________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > Kim , the Seabrake is about 1/4 the price of a JSD ( I am comparing the price of a finished JSD including the 350' of good line, whereas I assume the the price of the Seabrake does not include the line , bridle or other hardware). It is much more multi purpose. It is probably easier to stow , deploy , and retrieve, I am guessing than the JSD. > The only advantage I can see for a JSD over a Seabrake is that the Seabrake theoretically , in extreme conditions, could get thrown forward in a wave ,losing its drogue effect. The idea of the JSD is that it is always in at least two waves at a time so providing continuous drag. That, I think ,is what Donald Jordan was talking about. > But I might be talking about how many pins can dance on the head of an angel.Or something like that. > > Your boat is certainly looking good.Now is the time to weld on a couple of tangs for a bridle if that's what you decide.Actually I guess you can do that anytime ,on the SS samson posts. > > Where is your boat ? > > Here in Valdivia there are several steel sailboats under 30' owned by locals. I plan to post some photos of them soon. > > There is also a sistership to the Hiscock's second to last boat (Wanderer IV ?) , the steel centre cockpit 47' job they had built in Holland. It was a reported disaster. This boat here was bought by Sr. Moller in a sad state and he parked it beside his professional machine/fabricating shop in Valdivia and rebuilt it over 4 yrs. It looks pretty good now and he uses it for summer holiday cruises down to the Patagonian Channels. Has the original 3 cyl Detroit Diesel, over 40 yrs old , noisy but smooth , he says. > > The good thing about that storm you were in , is that it will be hard to find any worse , so that's one less thing to worry about. > > Steve ________________________________________________ | 26306|26239|2011-07-22 02:08:44|Kim|Re: KIm's Boat|Hi Matt ... All the stainless I've used so far has been 316 and 316L. So I'm using 316L rods for welding stainless to stainless. For stainless to mild steel I'm using 309L rods. Cheers ... Kim. ___________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Kim, > > The quality of your website draws people to look more, most of those hits are probably > 2nd and 3rd clicks. What gets people there in the first place is the number of people > who share the dream. > > If I lived on a half an acre, I would build an orgami. Unfortunately, my rural property > has no power (water, sewer, telephone, mail, or garbage pickup), it is quite a drive > and I am not there enough. I had to start with something more complete to suit my > schedule. > > BTW, what are you using to weld stainless to mild, and stainless to stainless ? Your > sampson posts are giving me ideas: the inch of fibreglass and good backing plates > should hold it. > > Matt ___________________________________________ | 26307|26283|2011-07-22 12:30:59|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:53:31AM -0000, aguysailing wrote: > Anyone using the dripless shaft seal instead of a stuffing box? Just > wondering about a good brand to take a look at. PSS shaft seal. Had it on my previous boat (7 years) and installed one on "Ulysses", too. It's literally a one-time deal: install and forget about it forever (well, they recommend replacing the bellows every ten years, but the one on "Ulysses" is about that old and still looks brand new.) No more twisting yourself into a pretzel to dig out the packing while water squirts everywhere... For $250, I bought myself at least 10 years of no maintenance in that area. Money well spent, in my opinion. > As far as a shaft goes, I heard that a "keyed" coupling instead of the > usual "set" screws is the best way to go... ?? Only if you want it to be reliable. :) I know of people who have gone through pure hell in remote places because their set screws wouldn't hold any 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| 26308|26239|2011-07-22 12:31:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: KIm's Boat|On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 04:28:02AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > When I started building my boat I struggled to get my head around the > origami building construction method, and indeed if it wasn't for > Alex's videos I would have been completely lost. So I started the > photo site in the hope that it might help others who might be in the > same position I was at the beginning. Plus it's a resource for > far-flung family members of mine who kept asking "how's the boat > going?"! :-) > > Brent's design is extraordinarily easy to build (compared to the > others I've done). This one is taking a while because I effectively > can only work on it about 1 day each week, and I'm mostly doing it > alone. In the meantime it's an enjoyable pastime; but it will be > awesome when it hits the water! :-) Wow. Kim, absolutely awesome photo-layout, and a great visual reference for anyone wanting to build a Brentboat (as well as a great ad for one. :) If Alex happens to drop in, this might be a really good link to add to the origami group's front page... 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| 26309|26283|2011-07-22 13:05:37|Mark Hamill|Re: Shaft Seal|Is there a picture or site for what a Keyed Couping would look like as opposed to the set screw?? Having trouble picturing this. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26310|26310|2011-07-22 13:12:06|sunbear|Dynel Arbrasion strips|Has anyone tried "rubbing" strips along sides and bow at waterline of epoxy/dynel? There is much floating wood here in BC and as I refinish Psyche's hull there is a lot of rust at the waterline that seeems to have been caused by collisions with stuff floating on the surface. I know that Brent recommends stainless rod at the bow which I do not have installed. Any thoughts?? Mark H| 26311|26283|2011-07-22 14:46:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Is there a picture or site for what a Keyed Couping would look like as opposed to the set screw?? Having trouble picturing this. MarkH Google images is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=514&q=keyed%20shaft&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi The ones where the keyway is cut only a short way into the shaft (not the entire length of it) is what you're looking 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| 26312|26310|2011-07-22 14:59:45|brentswain38|Re: Dynel Arbrasion strips|I've hit many log booms at hull speed , without going thru the epoxy. Only metal will do that, which if you hit it and it goes thru Dynel , you have a far bigger problem than chipped epoxy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > Has anyone tried "rubbing" strips along sides and bow at waterline of epoxy/dynel? There is much floating wood here in BC and as I refinish Psyche's hull there is a lot of rust at the waterline that seeems to have been caused by collisions with stuff floating on the surface. I know that Brent recommends stainless rod at the bow which I do not have installed. Any thoughts?? Mark H > | 26313|26310|2011-07-22 17:18:07|brentswain38|Re: Dynel Arbrasion strips|Once you break the Dynel free from the hull, there will be a the added problem of water traveling behind it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I've hit many log booms at hull speed , without going thru the epoxy. Only metal will do that, which if you hit it and it goes thru Dynel , you have a far bigger problem than chipped epoxy. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > > > Has anyone tried "rubbing" strips along sides and bow at waterline of epoxy/dynel? There is much floating wood here in BC and as I refinish Psyche's hull there is a lot of rust at the waterline that seeems to have been caused by collisions with stuff floating on the surface. I know that Brent recommends stainless rod at the bow which I do not have installed. Any thoughts?? Mark H > > > | 26314|26310|2011-07-22 17:21:45|Mark Hamill|Re: Dynel Arbrasion strips|Thanks Brent: I think I have answered my own question. In looking at all the local boats none of them have the same problem so I am now assuming that the rust is just due to a long-term lack of maintenance. And yes the dynel would just be a real pain to fix if it was punctured. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26315|26283|2011-07-22 17:29:50|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seal|One way I've heard machinists use to key a shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Is there a picture or site for what a Keyed Couping would look like as opposed to the set screw?? Having trouble picturing this. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26316|26283|2011-07-22 18:59:49|Denis Buggy|Re: Shaft Seal|DEAR BRENT this is not a good idea . keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they have enough softness to enable a interference fit which can usually be achieved by pressing the item onto the shaft with the key nose resting against its harbour before applying a few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is warmed before pressing --------- drilling two different metals and tapping something soft into the hole is looking for trouble --it will eventually loosen and never at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway the length of your prop aperture which will take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted -this is the minim standard for all shafting of this nature where your life depends on it ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut is anti clockwise of rotation in order to tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather than have a light force acting on the nut for a long period which will eventually loosen it ---------screws instead of proper keyways are trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy - One way I've heard machinists use to key a shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. --- . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26317|26283|2011-07-22 19:12:59|David Frantz|Re: Shaft Seal|Denis; My industrial experience tells me that every keying method eventually loosens. However keys are far better than setscrews. Taper lock type hubs are a great way to supplement the keyed attachment of a hub to a shaft. In any event I cringe at the thought of a setscrew only attachment of a hub. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Denis Buggy wrote: > DEAR BRENT > this is not a good idea . > keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they have enough softness to enable a interference fit which can usually be achieved by pressing the item onto the shaft with the key nose resting against its harbour before applying a few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is warmed before pressing --------- > drilling two different metals and tapping something soft into the hole is looking for trouble --it will eventually loosen and never at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway the length of your prop aperture which will take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted -this is the minim standard for all shafting of this nature where your life depends on it ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut is anti clockwise of rotation in order to tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather than have a light force acting on the nut for a long period which will eventually loosen it ---------screws instead of proper keyways are trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy > - > > > One way I've heard machinists use to key a shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. > > --- > . > > > > > [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 > > > | 26318|26283|2011-07-22 20:33:59|Darren Bos|Re: Shaft Seal|I've only pulled a few props, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the "key" difference between marine prop shafts and the industrial keyed shafts that props use tapered shafts while many industrial applications are just straight shafts, thus the key is a minor part of the strength with a boat prop. Isn't the taper itself taking the load in the way that a morse taper on a drill press or lathe requires no key at all, it is just the friction of the two surfaces. Isn't the key on a boat shaft there just to thwart vibration? Mark, here is to a link to a picture of a tapered keyed prop coupling http://rds-sxm.com/archives/www.techpromax.com/techdrwing.gif Darren At 04:11 PM 22/07/2011, you wrote: > > >Denis; > >My industrial experience tells me that every >keying method eventually loosens. However keys >are far better than setscrews. Taper lock type >hubs are a great way to supplement the keyed attachment of a hub to a shaft. > >In any event I cringe at the thought of a setscrew only attachment of a hub. > >Sent from my iPhone > >On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Denis Buggy ><denis@...> wrote: > > > DEAR BRENT > > this is not a good idea . > > keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they > have enough softness to enable a interference > fit which can usually be achieved by pressing > the item onto the shaft with the key nose > resting against its harbour before applying a > few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is > kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is > warmed before pressing --------- > > drilling two different metals and tapping > something soft into the hole is looking for > trouble --it will eventually loosen and never > at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway > the length of your prop aperture which will > take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted > -this is the minim standard for all shafting of > this nature where your life depends on it > ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut > is anti clockwise of rotation in order to > tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather > than have a light force acting on the nut for a > long period which will eventually loosen it > ---------screws instead of proper keyways are > trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy > > - > > > > > > One way I've heard machinists use to key a > shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint > between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass > rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. > > > > --- > > . > > > > > > > > > > [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]| 26319|26283|2011-07-22 22:41:31|wild_explorer|Re: Shaft Seal|May be this one helps? (prop/prop_shaft coupling) http://www.miwheel.com/uploads/resources/Inboard_Installation_Process.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Is there a picture or site for what a Keyed Couping would look like as opposed to the set screw?? Having trouble picturing this. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26320|26283|2011-07-23 00:01:47|Matt Malone|6011 trick for my welder|I was looking at DC switching power supply welders and I kept seeing these for hard or soft arc. Apparently it changes the voltage-current characteristic. Then I started thinking about my welder. It has a high range and low range plug. I had been using high range for years. About a year ago, the plastic grommet that feeds the power through the front panel softened enough to cause a really interesting arc in the front panel of my welder. I fixed it up with some insulating board and new feed-throughs. Problem is, the new low range recepticle was too tight to get the pin for the cable in it. I had been using only high range, which works well for 4mm rod. The adjustment crank is near the top of the adjustment for 4mm rod. The burn of the 4mm road was stable, hard to break the arc, hard to make it stick, it seemed to know how to weld all by itself, my adjustments just seemed to improve the quality. When I cranked he adjustment down for 1/8" / 3.2mm rod, it was below half on the adjustment when on high range. The arc had a different character on high range with the adjustment near the top, more than just more current. The buzzing sound coming from the welder was much different too. At lower adjustment on high range, the 1/8" 6011 and 6013 rods were unstable, snapping between the arc going out and the rod sticking. It felt like trying to balance a ruler on the end of a finger. After thinking about the hard/soft switch on the DC welders, I noticed that if I used low range for 1/8" rod the adjustment would be near the top of the adjustment. I reemed out the low range recepticle until the pin connector fit in, connected to low range, set it for 100A, then 112A, then 125A, and it the 6011 started working much better, mush less unstable. I was able to weld 3-4" at a time and make good welds before it stuck or the arc went out. I remember that I used to use the low range setting a lot and it worked well enough to make an inch or so of good weld at a time. So there has been some improvement. I learned from a pro that my other error was, I was trying to weld 6011 one-handed (less stable), with a 3/0 thick cable on the stinger (heavier, harder to manipulate the stinger). I am now welding 6011 two-handed, and using a cable sling pattern that reduces the weight on the stinger. Lots of little things that have made a substantial difference to my welding with 6011. I learned something new, thought I would share it. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26321|26239|2011-07-23 06:57:59|Kim|Re: KIm's Boat|Thanks Ben! Yes, by all means put a link to the photos on the front page if you would like to. It might be of assistance to anyone else building a Swain 26, or probably any of Brent's designs (as the construction procedures are much the same for all of them). Cheers ... Kim. PS: If it matters: There is no advertising on my site, and there never will be. All the photos are copyright-free. All can be downloaded freely (including full-size versions) and used by anyone for absolutely any purpose whatsoever. _______________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 04:28:02AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > When I started building my boat I struggled to get my head around the > > origami building construction method, and indeed if it wasn't for > > Alex's videos I would have been completely lost. So I started the > > photo site in the hope that it might help others who might be in the > > same position I was at the beginning. Plus it's a resource for > > far-flung family members of mine who kept asking "how's the boat > > going?"! :-) > > > > Brent's design is extraordinarily easy to build (compared to the > > others I've done). This one is taking a while because I effectively > > can only work on it about 1 day each week, and I'm mostly doing it > > alone. In the meantime it's an enjoyable pastime; but it will be > > awesome when it hits the water! :-) > > Wow. Kim, absolutely awesome photo-layout, and a great visual reference > for anyone wanting to build a Brentboat (as well as a great ad for one. :) > > If Alex happens to drop in, this might be a really good link to add to > the origami group's front page... > > > 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 _______________________________________________________ | 26322|26283|2011-07-23 17:01:13|brentswain38|Re: 6011 trick for my welder|When the cable gets heavy to hold , looping it over the back of your neck lets your neck take the weight, instead of your stinger hand. I went for smaller cable on my alternator welder, for that reason. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I was looking at DC switching power supply welders and I kept seeing these for hard or soft arc. Apparently it changes the voltage-current characteristic. Then I started thinking about my welder. It has a high range and low range plug. I had been using high range for years. About a year ago, the plastic grommet that feeds the power through the front panel softened enough to cause a really interesting arc in the front panel of my welder. I fixed it up with some insulating board and new feed-throughs. Problem is, the new low range recepticle was too tight to get the pin for the cable in it. I had been using only high range, which works well for 4mm rod. The adjustment crank is near the top of the adjustment for 4mm rod. The burn of the 4mm road was stable, hard to break the arc, hard to make it stick, it seemed to know how to weld all by itself, my adjustments just seemed to improve the quality. > > When I cranked he adjustment down for 1/8" / 3.2mm rod, it was below half on the adjustment when on high range. The arc had a different character on high range with the adjustment near the top, more than just more current. The buzzing sound coming from the welder was much different too. At lower adjustment on high range, the 1/8" 6011 and 6013 rods were unstable, snapping between the arc going out and the rod sticking. It felt like trying to balance a ruler on the end of a finger. > > After thinking about the hard/soft switch on the DC welders, I noticed that if I used low range for 1/8" rod the adjustment would be near the top of the adjustment. I reemed out the low range recepticle until the pin connector fit in, connected to low range, set it for 100A, then 112A, then 125A, and it the 6011 started working much better, mush less unstable. I was able to weld 3-4" at a time and make good welds before it stuck or the arc went out. I remember that I used to use the low range setting a lot and it worked well enough to make an inch or so of good weld at a time. So there has been some improvement. > > I learned from a pro that my other error was, I was trying to weld 6011 one-handed (less stable), with a 3/0 thick cable on the stinger (heavier, harder to manipulate the stinger). I am now welding 6011 two-handed, and using a cable sling pattern that reduces the weight on the stinger. Lots of little things that have made a substantial difference to my welding with 6011. > > I learned something new, thought I would share it. > > Matt > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26323|26283|2011-07-23 17:03:59|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seal|If the material is the same I don't think the shape of the key material ,or keyway, round or square, makes any difference. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > DEAR BRENT > this is not a good idea . > keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they have enough softness to enable a interference fit which can usually be achieved by pressing the item onto the shaft with the key nose resting against its harbour before applying a few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is warmed before pressing --------- > drilling two different metals and tapping something soft into the hole is looking for trouble --it will eventually loosen and never at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway the length of your prop aperture which will take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted -this is the minim standard for all shafting of this nature where your life depends on it ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut is anti clockwise of rotation in order to tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather than have a light force acting on the nut for a long period which will eventually loosen it ---------screws instead of proper keyways are trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy > - > > > One way I've heard machinists use to key a shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. > > --- > . > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26324|26283|2011-07-23 17:06:20|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seal|I have heard of several cases of the shaft pulling out of the coupling when thrown in reverse, and even being pulled right out of the boat. A set screw is grossly inadequate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Denis; > > My industrial experience tells me that every keying method eventually loosens. However keys are far better than setscrews. Taper lock type hubs are a great way to supplement the keyed attachment of a hub to a shaft. > > In any event I cringe at the thought of a setscrew only attachment of a hub. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > DEAR BRENT > > this is not a good idea . > > keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they have enough softness to enable a interference fit which can usually be achieved by pressing the item onto the shaft with the key nose resting against its harbour before applying a few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is warmed before pressing --------- > > drilling two different metals and tapping something soft into the hole is looking for trouble --it will eventually loosen and never at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway the length of your prop aperture which will take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted -this is the minim standard for all shafting of this nature where your life depends on it ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut is anti clockwise of rotation in order to tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather than have a light force acting on the nut for a long period which will eventually loosen it ---------screws instead of proper keyways are trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy > > - > > > > > > One way I've heard machinists use to key a shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. > > > > --- > > . > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > | 26325|26283|2011-07-23 17:13:20|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seal|I was referring tot he coupling end of the shaft , not the prop end. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > I've only pulled a few props, so maybe I'm > missing something, but isn't the "key" difference > between marine prop shafts and the industrial > keyed shafts that props use tapered shafts while > many industrial applications are just straight > shafts, thus the key is a minor part of the > strength with a boat prop. Isn't the taper > itself taking the load in the way that a morse > taper on a drill press or lathe requires no key > at all, it is just the friction of the two > surfaces. Isn't the key on a boat shaft there just to thwart vibration? > > Mark, here is to a link to a picture of a tapered > keyed prop > coupling http://rds-sxm.com/archives/www.techpromax.com/techdrwing.gif > > Darren > > At 04:11 PM 22/07/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >Denis; > > > >My industrial experience tells me that every > >keying method eventually loosens. However keys > >are far better than setscrews. Taper lock type > >hubs are a great way to supplement the keyed attachment of a hub to a shaft. > > > >In any event I cringe at the thought of a setscrew only attachment of a hub. > > > >Sent from my iPhone > > > >On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Denis Buggy > ><denis@...> wrote: > > > > > DEAR BRENT > > > this is not a good idea . > > > keyways are not brittle nor too soft -they > > have enough softness to enable a interference > > fit which can usually be achieved by pressing > > the item onto the shaft with the key nose > > resting against its harbour before applying a > > few tons of pressure -sometimes the shaft is > > kept in a fridge to shrink it and the pulley is > > warmed before pressing --------- > > > drilling two different metals and tapping > > something soft into the hole is looking for > > trouble --it will eventually loosen and never > > at a good time -----the real thing is a keyway > > the length of your prop aperture which will > > take a hydraulic pullers to remove once fitted > > -this is the minim standard for all shafting of > > this nature where your life depends on it > > ---------the thread on the prop retaining nut > > is anti clockwise of rotation in order to > > tighten the nut by rotation in the water rather > > than have a light force acting on the nut for a > > long period which will eventually loosen it > > ---------screws instead of proper keyways are > > trouble waiting to happen for this purpose . regards Denis Buggy > > > - > > > > > > > > > One way I've heard machinists use to key a > > shaft, is to drill a hole along the joint > > between shaft and coupling, and drive a brass > > rod in. Just as strong as a key, and simpler do do. > > > > > > --- > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26326|26283|2011-07-23 21:54:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:05:41PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > I have heard of several cases of the shaft pulling out of the > coupling when thrown in reverse, and even being pulled right out of > the boat. A set screw is grossly inadequate. I've seen that twice; helped both of them. Once in the Caribbean, where the shaft came right out of the boat (fortunately, it was easy to plug the hole... took a while to find the shaft, though) and once in St. Augustine, where the end of the shaft was _just_ inside the boat and the owner had to dive to push it back in. If _that_ one had come out, the boat would probably have gone down: reaching the packing box on it would have taken at least an hour of disassembly (aft cabin was full of lumber.) Neither of them had a keyed shaft - although the second boat had four huge screws with good-sized indentations in the shaft. Tore it all out like it was butter. 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| 26327|26283|2011-07-23 22:00:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:54:37PM -0400, Benjamin Okopnik wrote: > > I've seen that twice; helped both of them. Once in the Caribbean, where > the shaft came right out of the boat (fortunately, it was easy to plug > the hole... took a while to find the shaft, though) and once in St. > Augustine, where the end of the shaft was _just_ inside the boat and the > owner had to dive to push it back in. If _that_ one had come out, the > boat would probably have gone down: reaching the packing box on it would > have taken at least an hour of disassembly (aft cabin was full of > lumber.) Neither of them had a keyed shaft - although the second boat > had four huge screws with good-sized indentations in the shaft. Tore it > all out like it was butter. ...which reminds me: a shaft collar - even one with set screws - is not a bad idea, keyed shaft or no. Cheap insurance if _anything_ happens at the engine end of the shaft, or even if you're just working on the tranny. 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| 26328|26283|2011-07-23 23:05:51|William Munger|Re: Shaft Seal|I used one of these: http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/RULAND-MANUFACTURING-Shaft-Collar-2ANZ8 this spring when I replaced my old stuffing box with a PYI PSS system. I got the PSS all set and tight, then put this tight against the part of the PSS thats set screwed to the shaft. I think I have a photo somewhere if anyone is interested. William| 26329|26283|2011-07-24 10:27:16|scott|Re: Shaft Seal|A lot of guys here just attached a shaft zinc inside the boat to the prop shaft it makes a good keep the shaft from going all the way out of the boat item and is cheap to buy. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:54:37PM -0400, Benjamin Okopnik wrote: > > > > I've seen that twice; helped both of them. Once in the Caribbean, where > > the shaft came right out of the boat (fortunately, it was easy to plug > > the hole... took a while to find the shaft, though) and once in St. > > Augustine, where the end of the shaft was _just_ inside the boat and the > > owner had to dive to push it back in. If _that_ one had come out, the > > boat would probably have gone down: reaching the packing box on it would > > have taken at least an hour of disassembly (aft cabin was full of > > lumber.) Neither of them had a keyed shaft - although the second boat > > had four huge screws with good-sized indentations in the shaft. Tore it > > all out like it was butter. > > ...which reminds me: a shaft collar - even one with set screws - is not > a bad idea, keyed shaft or no. Cheap insurance if _anything_ happens at > the engine end of the shaft, or even if you're just working on the > tranny. > > > 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 > | 26330|26283|2011-07-24 11:02:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:27:14PM -0000, scott wrote: > A lot of guys here just attached a shaft zinc inside the boat to the > prop shaft it makes a good keep the shaft from going all the way out > of the boat item and is cheap to buy. *Nice*! The setup in my previous boat had something much like William's suggestion, but a shaft zinc would indeed be cheap and available everywhere. 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| 26331|26283|2011-07-24 11:07:37|GP|Re: Shaft Seal|Good posts.. thanks, since I will be replacing my shaft on my BS 36. What I have now is 2 set screws going through a collar at the engine end of the shaft. It seems from the posts best bet is to have a keyed shaft at the prop end. Additional helpful items would be the Grainger coupling (pics look impressive WM..thanks) and a zinc on the prop (just in case). My experience with the set screws and stuffing box (and pumping grease into the stern tube) has been NOT good and I do mean NOT good. I am going dripless this time as well. Thanks again for the helpful posts... Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > I used one of these: > http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/RULAND-MANUFACTURING-Shaft-Collar-2ANZ8 > > this spring when I replaced my old stuffing box with a PYI PSS system. > I got the PSS all set and tight, then put this tight against the part of > the PSS thats set screwed to the shaft. > > I think I have a photo somewhere if anyone is interested. > > William > | 26332|26283|2011-07-24 12:09:13|William Munger|Re: Shaft Seal|Hey, This tread made me get off my butt and update my boat site. If anyone is interested in seeing the PSS in place here are some photos: http://www.winddragon.net/projects/new-shaft-seal.html William| 26333|26333|2011-07-24 16:32:10|edward|Cooling system over flow|Hi All, Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. Regards, Ted| 26334|26333|2011-07-24 17:09:09|Paul Wilson|Re: Cooling system over flow|Preferably as high as you can get it. You will have to bleed air out of any high spots or you might end up with an air lock. Mine is connected to the hose above the thermostat housing on the engine since I have no convenient place on the manifold. As long as you get all the air out you should be OK. I guess if it boiled, there could be a problem with air, but that should never happen, knock on wood. I have an over temp alarm. It probably saved my engine once when a hose failed. Cheers,Paul On 7/25/2011 8:32 AM, edward wrote: > > Hi All, > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg > cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into > the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the > exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where > would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > Regards, > > Ted > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3785 - Release Date: 07/24/11 > | 26335|26283|2011-07-24 19:52:19|GP|Re: Shaft Seal|I was reading some posts in Cruisers World where contrary opinion was expressed regarding pss seal. Some guy uses a "black stuff" packing but does not mention brand that he says is dripless and does not overheat. The post is below and if anyone knows the brand let us know. I have pm'd the poster. .... Gary Re: Need help with PSS Shaftseal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I get mine from a seal and gasket manufacturer who provides it for the military and have used it for a few years, no leak, no scoring, runs cool and is used widely by the lobstermen here in Maine--from whom I learned about it, but I have seen the same thing (black stuff) in chandleries recently. I think someone on the site can give you the brand name it is sold under as they have on another thread. A few years ago when I first used it, I was thinking about packaging it for recreational yachts, but someone beat me to it. Costs about double the teflon flax packing we used to use. I also understand that there is a brand sold that is black and is not designed to run without water, so--apparently, not all black packing has the same properties. Before that I used to use the Dripless Packing (green clay) that has been around for 20 years. It was a little messy to set up--the clay is set in lubricant goop (the boatyard guys call it Elephant Snot) that oozes out at first and required gradually turning in the pressure on your fitting to stop the leak but not overtighten. Then it is dripless. I used this for years and thousands of miles (a couple years in Central America and a lot of motoring with no adjustment) and it worked OK, too, once set up, but the black stuff is a great improvement. Simpler to set up, cheaper. Word of caution: You need to tighten the nut with this stuff very gradually. I can imagine that it would not be something the boatyards would want to encourage as it requires some initial, sequential tighting as it wears in. You hand tighten the nut plus a 1/8th of a turn, run for a few hours and check, repeat until there are no leaks. Honking it down really tight and sending folks on their way is not going to work--I imagine it is possible to overtighten. No mechanical device or packing material is going to work on a significantly misaligned drive train or out-of-true shaft. Someone will have the brand name. I am told West Marine has it. My local chandlery has it. __________________ Ray Durkee S/V Velera Tartan 37 Castine, Maine --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > Hey, This tread made me get off my butt and update my boat site. If > anyone is interested in seeing the PSS in place here are some photos: > http://www.winddragon.net/projects/new-shaft-seal.html > > William > | 26336|26333|2011-07-24 21:29:01|steve|Re: Cooling system over flow|My overflow is out of a 1/4 " nipple brazed onto the side of the coolant tank filler on the manifold , with a regular radiator pressure cap. When the engine is up to temp and working, and the spring in the cap is compressed, I get about 1/2 litre into the expansion bottle. The plastic hose from the nipple is led through a hole in the pop-bottle lid and down to touch the bottom of the bottle. Then when the engine cools , it sucks the coolant back in to the engine. Same pop bottle for about 12 yrs now. The coolant reservoir filler is at the high point of the system. The clear plastic pop bottle is secured on the galley sole where I can always see it. The whole deal is a pain to clear of airbubbles when I (rarely) change the coolant. If there is an airbubble such that coolant is not circulating , it takes about 15 - 20 minutes under load before the temp gauge gives an indication of problems , then the alarm goes off. I learned that the hard way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > Hi All, > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > Regards, > > Ted > | 26337|26283|2011-07-25 00:58:35|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seal|On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:09:03PM -0400, William Munger wrote: > Hey, This tread made me get off my butt and update my boat site. If > anyone is interested in seeing the PSS in place here are some photos: > http://www.winddragon.net/projects/new-shaft-seal.html Of the two PSS units that I've had, neither one had that "tap" on it - as I understood it, those were recommended for powerboats because of heavier usage - but hey, nothing wrong with having a heavier-duty unit in place. Good job detailing your projects, by the way - including the problems you had run into. Makes for a good warning/education for someone getting ready to do a similar project... 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| 26338|26283|2011-07-25 09:14:26|William Munger|Re: Shaft Seal|Thank you Ben, my biggest challenge has been making myself stop to take photos. There are many photos I wish I had taken :-) Wiliam > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:09:03PM -0400, William Munger wrote: > > Hey, This tread made me get off my butt and update my boat site. If > > anyone is interested in seeing the PSS in place here are some photos: > > http://www.winddragon.net/projects/new-shaft-seal.html > > Of the two PSS units that I've had, neither one had that "tap" on it - > as I understood it, those were recommended for powerboats because of > heavier usage - but hey, nothing wrong with having a heavier-duty unit > in place. Good job detailing your projects, by the way - including the > problems you had run into. Makes for a good warning/education for > someone getting ready to do a similar project... > > 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]| 26339|26333|2011-07-25 16:48:35|brentswain38|Re: Cooling system over flow|I just raised the header tank above the engine, where the water leaves the watercooled manifold. I simply push a poly plastic cap on the filler pipe. Have had no problem with that arrangement for the 15 years it has been there. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > Hi All, > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > Regards, > > Ted > | 26340|26333|2011-07-25 16:52:45|brentswain38|Re: Cooling system over flow|My Isuzu lost all it's coolant once, when the bleed screw on top of the thermostat came out. I replaced it with a stainless one, which can be bled with a screwdriver on a slot headed screw in the middle of the plug. No chance of losing anything in the bilge. The boat place, by the govt dock in Sidney BC sells them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Preferably as high as you can get it. You will have to bleed air out of > any high spots or you might end up with an air lock. Mine is connected > to the hose above the thermostat housing on the engine since I have no > convenient place on the manifold. As long as you get all the air out you > should be OK. I guess if it boiled, there could be a problem with air, > but that should never happen, knock on wood. I have an over temp alarm. > It probably saved my engine once when a hose failed. > > Cheers,Paul > > On 7/25/2011 8:32 AM, edward wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg > > cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into > > the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the > > exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where > > would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ted > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3785 - Release Date: 07/24/11 > > > | 26341|26333|2011-07-25 16:59:43|brentswain38|Re: Cooling system over flow|To get the air bubbles out I made up a hose with a plastic hose barb on, which I push into the outlet in the bottom of the header tank. I then fill my pressure can up with coolant, pump it up to 40 lbs pressure then blow the coolant thru the system to force all the bubbles are out. I can tie to a gas dock in the middle of the nite, hook this system up to the dock hose and flush the system out completely, then motor away to change the water for coolant later, at my leisure. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > My overflow is out of a 1/4 " nipple brazed onto the side of the coolant tank filler on the manifold , with a regular radiator pressure cap. When the engine is up to temp and working, and the spring in the cap is compressed, I get about 1/2 litre into the expansion bottle. The plastic hose from the nipple is led through a hole in the pop-bottle lid and down to touch the bottom of the bottle. Then when the engine cools , it sucks the coolant back in to the engine. > Same pop bottle for about 12 yrs now. > The coolant reservoir filler is at the high point of the system. > The clear plastic pop bottle is secured on the galley sole where I can always see it. > The whole deal is a pain to clear of airbubbles when I (rarely) change the coolant. > If there is an airbubble such that coolant is not circulating , it takes about 15 - 20 minutes under load before the temp gauge gives an indication of problems , then the alarm goes off. I learned that the hard way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ted > > > | 26342|26283|2011-07-25 17:03:46|David Frantz|Re: Shaft Seal|An inexpensive security measure here would be a simple split collar clamped on to the shaft. Such collars are easy to obtain from bearing supply houses, and the big catalog houses. I'm actually surprised that prop shafts get installed in boats in the manner that they are. Considering how serious a problem pulling the shaft out accidentally could be, you would think there would be a secondary piece of insurance. Dave On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:54 PM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:05:41PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: >> I have heard of several cases of the shaft pulling out of the >> coupling when thrown in reverse, and even being pulled right out of >> the boat. A set screw is grossly inadequate. > > I've seen that twice; helped both of them. Once in the Caribbean, where > the shaft came right out of the boat (fortunately, it was easy to plug > the hole... took a while to find the shaft, though) and once in St. > Augustine, where the end of the shaft was _just_ inside the boat and the > owner had to dive to push it back in. If _that_ one had come out, the > boat would probably have gone down: reaching the packing box on it would > have taken at least an hour of disassembly (aft cabin was full of > lumber.) Neither of them had a keyed shaft - although the second boat > had four huge screws with good-sized indentations in the shaft. Tore it > all out like it was butter. > > > 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 > > > | 26343|26283|2011-07-25 17:04:52|David Frantz|Re: Shaft Seal|Looks like I should have read one message ahead! But yes cheap insurance. Dave On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:00 PM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:54:37PM -0400, Benjamin Okopnik wrote: >> >> I've seen that twice; helped both of them. Once in the Caribbean, where >> the shaft came right out of the boat (fortunately, it was easy to plug >> the hole... took a while to find the shaft, though) and once in St. >> Augustine, where the end of the shaft was _just_ inside the boat and the >> owner had to dive to push it back in. If _that_ one had come out, the >> boat would probably have gone down: reaching the packing box on it would >> have taken at least an hour of disassembly (aft cabin was full of >> lumber.) Neither of them had a keyed shaft - although the second boat >> had four huge screws with good-sized indentations in the shaft. Tore it >> all out like it was butter. > > ...which reminds me: a shaft collar - even one with set screws - is not > a bad idea, keyed shaft or no. Cheap insurance if _anything_ happens at > the engine end of the shaft, or even if you're just working on the > tranny. > > > 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 > > > | 26344|26344|2011-07-25 18:20:22|GP|Window sealant|Just a heads up for guys about to put in windows. My boat was launched 2005 ...windows were sealed with white sica flex. Much of it has discoloured. The black sica I have seen on some boats looks good. Perhaps others have had good luck with other sealants..,? Gary| 26345|26344|2011-07-25 18:46:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Window sealant|On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:20:12PM -0000, GP wrote: > Just a heads up for guys about to put in windows. My boat was > launched 2005 ...windows were sealed with white sica flex. Much of it > has discoloured. The black sica I have seen on some boats looks good. > Perhaps others have had good luck with other sealants..,? I was just talking to a fellow sailor yesterday, who had replaced all his hatch glazing last year and bedded the brand-new poly in Sikaflex (followed their instructions, used their primer, etc.) Eight months later, all the ports leak and at least one has come completely unglued. A bit shocking, but there it is. In all the years of trying what seems like every sealant on the face of the earth, I've only been successful with one (3M 5200, any color.) I have also heard two professional, reputable boat builders recommend another (black LifeCaulk.) I learned this method from a friend, Norm Johnson, a good dozen years ago: lay a really fat bead over the area, then use the tips of 4-8 chopsticks to shim, e.g., the hatch above the deck. Screw it down until it's barely seated and the sealant has _just_ started to squeeze out all around, then leave it till it cures. Remove the chopsticks (only their tips will be glued into the goop) and drive the screws down hard; this will seal on the now-formed thick gasket. To the best of my knowledge, Norm's hatches are over 30 years old - and don't leak. 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| 26346|26344|2011-07-25 19:44:49|Paul Wilson|Re: Window sealant|The secret is keeping the sealant thick.... I am just in the process of putting in plexiglass windows on a hard dodger. I am going to use Sikaflex 295 UV. If you look at the instructions, it is very important that the sealant is thick enough to allow enough movement since plexiglass expands and contracts so much with temperature. You also must use the correct primer. If done right, you shouldn't need any fasteners. On portholes or a wheelhouse, I would stick with fasteners but stay with the same thickness of sealant. If it is in a full mechanically fastened frame, you should be able to use cheaper sealants like butyl but keep in mind there is a lot of expansion and contraction of plexiglass with temperature. I think Brent has a good write-up on this in his book.... By the way, plexiglass or acrylic is now often called PMMA or "organic glass" even though it has been around since World War II. Bloody stupid. Good write-up here: http://www.sika.co.nz/nz_ind_guide_organic_glass__plastic_window_installation_guide_0907.pdf Paul| 26347|26347|2011-07-26 12:55:16|Pierre|Can you get stuck in fishing gear with a BS twin keel?|Hi, I always though that my next boat would be a full keel boat, but I've been reading a lot on this group and I will definitely go for a twin keel. Here is my question, if you sail over a net or a long floating line hooked on a buoy or anything other fishing gear, will you get stuck on it? Thanks a lot guys, Pierre| 26348|26347|2011-07-26 13:44:22|brentswain38|Re: Can you get stuck in fishing gear with a BS twin keel?|My keels slide right over ropes. If the rope is tight, my skeg does too, but has a slight tendency to catch slack ropes, which I hope a slight modification will soon rectify. My skeg bottom is slightly different from the ones in the drawing, which should have no problems. I see disasters looming in this regard ,with some high aspect fin and bulb designs, especially with anchor rodes and kelp. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > Hi, > > I always though that my next boat would be a full keel boat, > but I've been reading a lot on this group and I will definitely go for a twin keel. Here is my question, if you sail over a net or a long floating line hooked on a buoy or anything other fishing gear, will you get stuck on it? > > Thanks a lot guys, > Pierre > | 26349|26349|2011-07-26 20:28:39|Pierre|BS in the Canadian maritime|Hi, Anybody know if there is a BS on the East coast of Canada? I live in NB and would really like to visit one and go for a sail on a BS. I'm seriously thinking about building one of these boats so it would be nice to see\sail one first. One more thing, I'm 6'6'' tall, and ideally I would like the 31 ft for lower maintenance cost, smaller sails, smaller winches.... But i'm wondering if I would be comfortable in the 31ft. How much head room in the 31? and the 36? And how much head room can I obtain by lowering the floor, without losing too much tankage? Thanks, Pierre| 26350|26350|2011-07-27 14:33:33|Mark Hamill|Wasser Tar Update|For BC peoples Information: I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that carries Wasser Ccoatings. Color Your World no longer exists and ICI Paints carries only epoxy tar same for Industrial Plastics, General, Cloverdale, Home Despot :), Home Hardware. I contacted Wasser in Washington 1-800-627-2968 and got some US prices but these cannot compete with local prices on epoxy tar unfortunatly or so would seem unless one was in the locale of Auburn Washington on a trip. Prebond 53.32, Tar 58.57, Thinner 27.02 Thinner 100--36.92 and the amount for PURQuik accelerator is 11.01 I think. I am waiting for somebody in Vancouver to come back from a vacation for a price there and they are the only local suppliers or so it would seem. I was talking to Kevin Grillo in Washington kgrillo@.... Anybody find out anything different?? MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26351|26350|2011-07-27 15:25:18|PAUL LIEBENBERG|Re: Wasser Tar Update|You could check out rivera coatings. I believe a similar product. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:33 am Subject: [origamiboats] Wasser Tar Update To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > For BC peoples Information: > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the > Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that > carries Wasser Ccoatings. Color Your World no longer exists and > ICI Paints carries only epoxy tar same for Industrial Plastics, > General, Cloverdale, Home Despot :), Home Hardware. > I contacted Wasser in Washington 1-800-627-2968 and got some US > prices but these cannot compete with local prices on epoxy tar > unfortunatly or so would seem unless one was in the locale of > Auburn Washington on a trip. Prebond 53.32, Tar 58.57, Thinner > 27.02 Thinner 100--36.92 and the amount for PURQuik accelerator > is 11.01 I think. > I am waiting for somebody in Vancouver to come back from a > vacation for a price there and they are the only local suppliers > or so it would seem. I was talking to Kevin Grillo in Washington > kgrillo@.... > Anybody find out anything different?? MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   > origamiboats@yahoogroups.comTo Unsubscribe, send a blank message > to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26352|26350|2011-07-27 17:51:36|Paul Wilson|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Tar based paints are being discontinued by a lot of the paint companies due to environmental concerns with the tar. My guess is that in a few more years, you may not be able to get them at all. The new high solids epoxies are very good and well proven. I would have no problem using any of the epoxies developed for splash zones on offshore oil rigs. If it will work there, it will work on a yacht. Altex or PPG (formerly Ameron) are two good names. I found the yacht brands like International are too expensive.... Cheers, Paul On 28/07/2011 7:25 a.m., PAUL LIEBENBERG wrote: > > You could check out rivera coatings. I believe a similar product. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Hamill > > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:33 am > Subject: [origamiboats] Wasser Tar Update > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > For BC peoples Information: > > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the > > Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that > > carries Wasser Ccoatings. > > | 26353|26350|2011-07-27 19:39:17|Mark Hamill|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Thanks for replies: To make life SIMPLE (goodness knows I can complicate things:)) --I will just go with ClovaTar 2 which I have used before and the Cloverdale PrepTech Epoxy Penetrating Sealer which I have not but looks like it will allow me to not sandblast (the neighbors would lynch me I am sure)--and will phone other companies to see if they have similar products cheaper. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26354|26344|2011-07-28 03:48:45|Denis Buggy|Re: Window sealant|HELLO ALL DO NOT BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON SIKAFLEX ON SOMEBODY WHO CANNOT USE IT . I have tried to find a cheaper source of high quality bonding and sealing agent and have done trade shows --internet --ect --and found the following -- there are only two makers of high spec polymers in the world -- Dow Corning and Sika ----------- most of the train and bus and aircraft windows do not fall out or leak in their lifetime however this is not pointed out to you only the dummy who fails is made known to you and this is a fair assessment of a worldwide product which try as I will I cannot find a better or cheaper source . a modern high spec coach is 300,000-00 euros +++ and some modern single piece windscreens need a crane to fit them and can cost up to and over 4000-00 euros to buy transport and fit ---side windows are double glazed and can cost 1500-00 to fit do you think the people who buy them will allow them to fall off the bus onto the motorway ---has anybody in orgamiboats ever heard of windows falling from trains or aircraft or buses-- all of which work hard for 20 years some 24/7 --- none of which sit in a harbour all day while somebody smokes a joint looking at the window sealant and wonders aloud about the quality . LOOK UP THE DATA SHEET ON SIKA-TAC ---A PRIMERLESS SINGLE COMPONENT SEALANT FOR GLASS . FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND FORGET ABOUT IT AS EVERYTHING THAT PASSES YOU BY TODAY HAS IT IN THEIR WINDOWS AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HIT BY FLYING GLASS LATELY . regards Denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Window sealant On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:20:12PM -0000, GP wrote: > Just a heads up for guys about to put in windows. My boat was > launched 2005 ...windows were sealed with white sica flex. Much of it > has discoloured. The black sica I have seen on some boats looks good. > Perhaps others have had good luck with other sealants..,? I was just talking to a fellow sailor yesterday, who had replaced all his hatch glazing last year and bedded the brand-new poly in Sikaflex (followed their instructions, used their primer, etc.) Eight months later, all the ports leak and at least one has come completely unglued. A bit shocking, but there it is. In all the years of trying what seems like every sealant on the face of the earth, I've only been successful with one (3M 5200, any color.) I have also heard two professional, reputable boat builders recommend another (black LifeCaulk.) I learned this method from a friend, Norm Johnson, a good dozen years ago: lay a really fat bead over the area, then use the tips of 4-8 chopsticks to shim, e.g., the hatch above the deck. Screw it down until it's barely seated and the sealant has _just_ started to squeeze out all around, then leave it till it cures. Remove the chopsticks (only their tips will be glued into the goop) and drive the screws down hard; this will seal on the now-formed thick gasket. To the best of my knowledge, Norm's hatches are over 30 years old - and don't leak. 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] | 26355|26344|2011-07-28 08:53:04|Ted|Re: Window sealant|Hi All. Fair comment Dennis. It is how it is applied that makes the difference. In many manufacturing cases though the adhesive/ sealant is applied by machine or robot and a beautiful seal is the result. I have never got that skill and have difficulty in accurately applying sealant out of a tube or even keeping it off my clothes and adjacent objects so I have used scapa tape to bed and seal my windows which are held in place mechanically. It looks good but the boat is still in its shed so its sealing properties has not been tested. The tape is protected from the sun so I do not expect it to discolour. Hadlow Marine Services have some good information on their web pages about sealing tape use for marine windows. I have used Boat Life Calk on the through hulls and it looks good. It needs 55°F to 75°F and a humid atmosphere to go off though. Mine took months to go off as it was earlier in the year in the UK when I applied it. I phoned the manufacturers in Charleston, Carolina about it and they told me the ambient condition requirements. I put rubber O ring spacers under the component so that I got a good thickness of the sealant. Regards, Ted --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > HELLO ALL > DO NOT BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON SIKAFLEX ON SOMEBODY WHO CANNOT USE IT . > > I have tried to find a cheaper source of high quality bonding and sealing agent and have done trade shows --internet --ect --and found the following -- > there are only two makers of high spec polymers in the world -- Dow Corning and Sika ----------- > most of the train and bus and aircraft windows do not fall out or leak in their lifetime however this is not pointed out to you only the dummy who fails is made known to you and this is a fair assessment of a worldwide product which try as I will I cannot find a better or cheaper source . > a modern high spec coach is 300,000-00 euros +++ and some modern single piece windscreens need a crane to fit them and can cost up to and over 4000-00 euros to buy transport and fit ---side windows are double glazed and can cost 1500-00 to fit > do you think the people who buy them will allow them to fall off the bus onto the motorway ---has anybody in orgamiboats ever heard of windows falling from trains or aircraft or buses-- all of which work hard for 20 years some 24/7 --- none of which sit in a harbour all day while somebody smokes a joint looking at the window sealant and wonders aloud about the quality . > LOOK UP THE DATA SHEET ON SIKA-TAC ---A PRIMERLESS SINGLE COMPONENT SEALANT FOR GLASS . > FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND FORGET ABOUT IT AS EVERYTHING THAT PASSES YOU BY TODAY HAS IT IN THEIR WINDOWS AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HIT BY FLYING GLASS LATELY . regards Denis buggy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ben Okopnik > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:46 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Window sealant > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:20:12PM -0000, GP wrote: > > Just a heads up for guys about to put in windows. My boat was > > launched 2005 ...windows were sealed with white sica flex. Much of it > > has discoloured. The black sica I have seen on some boats looks good. > > Perhaps others have had good luck with other sealants..,? > > I was just talking to a fellow sailor yesterday, who had replaced all > his hatch glazing last year and bedded the brand-new poly in Sikaflex > (followed their instructions, used their primer, etc.) Eight months > later, all the ports leak and at least one has come completely unglued. > A bit shocking, but there it is. > > In all the years of trying what seems like every sealant on the face of > the earth, I've only been successful with one (3M 5200, any color.) I > have also heard two professional, reputable boat builders recommend > another (black LifeCaulk.) > > I learned this method from a friend, Norm Johnson, a good dozen years > ago: lay a really fat bead over the area, then use the tips of 4-8 > chopsticks to shim, e.g., the hatch above the deck. Screw it down until > it's barely seated and the sealant has _just_ started to squeeze out all > around, then leave it till it cures. Remove the chopsticks (only their > tips will be glued into the goop) and drive the screws down hard; this > will seal on the now-formed thick gasket. To the best of my knowledge, > Norm's hatches are over 30 years old - and don't leak. > > 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] > | 26356|26333|2011-07-28 08:55:42|Ted|Re: Cooling system over flow|Many thanks to you all for your information. Best regards, Ted --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I just raised the header tank above the engine, where the water leaves the watercooled manifold. I simply push a poly plastic cap on the filler pipe. Have had no problem with that arrangement for the 15 years it has been there. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Soon I will be fitting an coolant expansion vessel into the skeg cooling system on our 36' There is a bleed cock inside the hull into the aft end of the skeg and there is a welded water jacket around the exhaust manifold where the filler cap is, which I coul tap into. Where would you recommend that I fit the connection to the overflow vessel. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ted > > > | 26357|26357|2011-07-28 10:03:03|parr|spray foam|I just got a quote from a local spray foam company. It is for a closed cell "Demalac" or something close to that. They are quoting $2.10 per square foot. Is this reasonable?? How many square feet average in a 36'???? The quote was for 2" thick, a little less for 1.5" thick. Thanks, Frank [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26358|26357|2011-07-28 11:42:53|Matt Malone|Re: spray foam|I am also very interested to hear the answer to this. My solid-hull fibreglass boat is in need of some thermal insulation. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: sitefix@... Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:02:59 -0400 Subject: [origamiboats] spray foam I just got a quote from a local spray foam company. It is for a closed cell "Demalac" or something close to that. They are quoting $2.10 per square foot. Is this reasonable?? How many square feet average in a 36'???? The quote was for 2" thick, a little less for 1.5" thick. Thanks, Frank [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26359|26357|2011-07-28 13:11:08|Paul Cotter|Re: spray foam|Hi Frank- I have a colleague who runs a spray foam company here in Alaska. His rule for approximating foam jobs is about $1/inch/ft2. Your estimate would be about right for my area. Might depend on your location, though. Cheers Paul On Jul 28, 2011, at 6:02 AM, parr wrote: > I just got a quote from a local spray foam company. > > It is for a closed cell "Demalac" or something close to that. > > They are quoting $2.10 per square foot. > > Is this reasonable?? > > How many square feet average in a 36'???? > > The quote was for 2" thick, a little less for 1.5" thick. > > Thanks, > > Frank > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26360|26350|2011-07-28 21:00:07|haidan|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Mark, I got my wasser paint from a company called either cancoat or micron I could never tell which, one company had just bought the other or something, they are in vancouver and have a warehouse in esquimalt. thanks to Ben and his site here are the phone numbers. "I too used wasser tar cost about 85 CND a gallon (in large amounts) got it from Micron (or Cancoat - they're merging) they're in vancouver but have a warehouse in victoria they supply the naval shipyards there i believe with a lot of International Paints but deal with wasser as well I called Wasser in Kent, WA and this is who they said they dealt with on the west coast 604-291-8242 for the main office in vancouver 250-383-2414 for the ware house in Esquimalt the zinc primer cost more weighing in around 125 CND or so if i can remember correctly now. get lots of thinner with it." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For BC peoples Information: > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that carries Wasser Ccoatings. Color Your World no longer exists and ICI Paints carries only epoxy tar same for Industrial Plastics, General, Cloverdale, Home Despot :), Home Hardware. > I contacted Wasser in Washington 1-800-627-2968 and got some US prices but these cannot compete with local prices on epoxy tar unfortunatly or so would seem unless one was in the locale of Auburn Washington on a trip. Prebond 53.32, Tar 58.57, Thinner 27.02 Thinner 100--36.92 and the amount for PURQuik accelerator is 11.01 I think. > I am waiting for somebody in Vancouver to come back from a vacation for a price there and they are the only local suppliers or so it would seem. I was talking to Kevin Grillo in Washington kgrillo@... > Anybody find out anything different?? MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26361|26350|2011-07-28 21:17:41|martin demers|Re: Wasser Tar Update|I wonder if they ship to Montreal, I know that you cant get paint from the US accross the border by shipping companies. martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: haidan@... Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:59:55 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar Update Mark, I got my wasser paint from a company called either cancoat or micron I could never tell which, one company had just bought the other or something, they are in vancouver and have a warehouse in esquimalt. thanks to Ben and his site here are the phone numbers. "I too used wasser tar cost about 85 CND a gallon (in large amounts) got it from Micron (or Cancoat - they're merging) they're in vancouver but have a warehouse in victoria they supply the naval shipyards there i believe with a lot of International Paints but deal with wasser as well I called Wasser in Kent, WA and this is who they said they dealt with on the west coast 604-291-8242 for the main office in vancouver 250-383-2414 for the ware house in Esquimalt the zinc primer cost more weighing in around 125 CND or so if i can remember correctly now. get lots of thinner with it." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For BC peoples Information: > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that carries Wasser Ccoatings. Color Your World no longer exists and ICI Paints carries only epoxy tar same for Industrial Plastics, General, Cloverdale, Home Despot :), Home Hardware. > I contacted Wasser in Washington 1-800-627-2968 and got some US prices but these cannot compete with local prices on epoxy tar unfortunatly or so would seem unless one was in the locale of Auburn Washington on a trip. Prebond 53.32, Tar 58.57, Thinner 27.02 Thinner 100--36.92 and the amount for PURQuik accelerator is 11.01 I think. > I am waiting for somebody in Vancouver to come back from a vacation for a price there and they are the only local suppliers or so it would seem. I was talking to Kevin Grillo in Washington kgrillo@... > Anybody find out anything different?? MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26362|26357|2011-07-29 06:07:20|Wally Paine|Re: spray foam|I read somewhere recently of insulating a GRP boat with aluminium "space" blankets. I have forgotten what glue they used but at the back of my mind is the idea that it was some sort of impact adhesive.   Apparently the insulation was satisfactory and also it provided a much enhanced radar reflection, similar to that of a steel boat. I have no idea of durability or cost. Wally Paine ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2011, 16:42 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] spray foam I am also very interested to hear the answer to this.  My solid-hull fibreglass boat is in need of some thermal insulation.  Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: sitefix@... Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:02:59 -0400 Subject: [origamiboats] spray foam                         I just got a quote from a local spray foam company. It is for a closed cell "Demalac" or something close to that. They are quoting $2.10 per square foot. Is this reasonable?? How many square feet average in a 36'???? The quote was for 2" thick, a little less for 1.5" thick. Thanks, Frank [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]| 26363|26344|2011-07-29 10:18:27|Ben Okopnik|Re: Window sealant|On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:48:49AM +0100, Denis Buggy wrote: > HELLO ALL > DO NOT BASE YOUR DECISIONS ON SIKAFLEX ON SOMEBODY WHO CANNOT USE IT . That's not too unreasonable, I suppose (although I do wish you'd stop SHOUTING, Denis.) However, there's still something important to consider here: the sailor that I was talking to, Minay, has over 50 years of experience in both sailing and working on boats, professionally. He's also a very intelligent fellow (and from where I sit, that's not a compliment I hand out lightly) and highly competent in a variety of fields related to boats - e.g., he's an excellent mast tuner and rig designer. He researched the problem very thoroughly before trying to fix it, bought the best plastic for the job and the most-highly recommended sealant, and followed the instructions carefully and to the letter - and *still* failed. There may well be a way to get a perfect result with Sikaflex; you say there is, and I believe you. However, it does not seem that the average human being - or even one who is quite a bit above average, in my estimation - is capable of doing it, and I know many people besides Minay who got a result similar to his. That, to me at least, makes Sikaflex completely worthless, no matter how good it may be in some technical sense. Perhaps Sikaflex should have one of your bus window installers write a manual on how to use it properly - or better yet, send one of these guys on a tour of the world to teach people how to use their product. They'd make huge piles of money doing it, if the product is actually as good as you say 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| 26364|26357|2011-07-29 10:37:49|sitefix|spray foam|well i am glad to hear the price is more or less on target, hopefully brent or a previous builder will chime in and provide an average square foot requirement for the 36. i am not sure how to do the math with the pilot house and such. thanks for the thots so far. frank| 26365|26357|2011-07-29 11:13:52|Aaron|Re: spray foam|8 x 36 x 3= 864sf is my best guess. Aaron From: sitefix To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:37 AM Subject: [origamiboats] spray foam   well i am glad to hear the price is more or less on target, hopefully brent or a previous builder will chime in and provide an average square foot requirement for the 36. i am not sure how to do the math with the pilot house and such. thanks for the thots so far. frank [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26366|26350|2011-07-29 11:51:52|Mark Hamill|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Thanks Haidan: Most excellent!! MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26367|26350|2011-07-29 13:10:32|Mark Hamill|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Haidan: The company you got the Wasser Tar from has been bought out and are no longer allowed to order it in. Thanks for the lead though. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26368|26350|2011-07-29 17:40:51|kingsknight4life|Re: Wasser Tar Update|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Haidan: The company you got the Wasser Tar from has been bought out and are no longer allowed to order it in. Thanks for the lead though. MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Just two weeks ago I spoke with the Wasser Rep in Washington State. I was told that I could order from him direct and that they were shipping out of Quebec now, which should mean no duty. :) They can also ship out of Washington too. I will be ordering som4e shortly. Rowland| 26369|26369|2011-07-30 11:24:13|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|mast location|Hi Brent, could you tell me if there is a rule of thumb to locate the mast on deck(for a sloop), I presume you have to take in consideration the location of ballast. Martin.| 26370|26369|2011-07-30 13:03:38|Norm Moore|Re: mast location|I believe even yacht designers finalize the location by sea trials. You can rake the mast some, but I thought Gord Schnell's idea of allowing some flexibility in mounting fore and aft as shown in the attached "Amazing Grace" was a really good one. Norm Moore ________________________________ From: "mdemers2005@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 8:24:13 AM Subject: [origamiboats] mast location Hi Brent, could you tell me if there is a rule of thumb to locate the mast on deck(for a sloop), I presume you have to take in consideration the location of ballast. Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26371|26344|2011-07-31 20:58:13|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why not and it is fine so far. Rather a formidable adhesive ie had to remove two portlights because of some new construction and it really didn't want to let go of the pieces. Now I understand there is a solvent that will release the caulking. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26372|26369|2011-08-01 08:47:14|IAN CAMPBELL|Re: mast location|Think windsurfing... Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is)  this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26373|26369|2011-08-01 12:29:29|martin demers|Re: mast location|Norm, I agree with sea trial but you have to change rigging wires lenght or complete wire each time. Wich can be costy. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: normmoore@... Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:03:36 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] mast location I believe even yacht designers finalize the location by sea trials. You can rake the mast some, but I thought Gord Schnell's idea of allowing some flexibility in mounting fore and aft as shown in the attached "Amazing Grace" was a really good one. Norm Moore ________________________________ From: "mdemers2005@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 8:24:13 AM Subject: [origamiboats] mast location Hi Brent, could you tell me if there is a rule of thumb to locate the mast on deck(for a sloop), I presume you have to take in consideration the location of ballast. Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26374|26350|2011-08-01 14:46:52|martin demers|Re: Wasser Tar Update|good to know for me , I am in Montreal. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: wildcatbjj@... Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:40:41 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar Update --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Haidan: The company you got the Wasser Tar from has been bought out and are no longer allowed to order it in. Thanks for the lead though. MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Just two weeks ago I spoke with the Wasser Rep in Washington State. I was told that I could order from him direct and that they were shipping out of Quebec now, which should mean no duty. :) They can also ship out of Washington too. I will be ordering som4e shortly. Rowland [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26375|26344|2011-08-01 20:47:50|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Re: Window sealant|I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjUgDqKc0x4 And thanks for the polyurethane tips Mark. I score 2 free cases of PL Premium adhesive today from the makers in return for their using my video of testing that stuff for sales training. Doug SubmarineBoat.com --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why not and it is fine so far. Rather a formidable adhesive ie had to remove two portlights because of some new construction and it really didn't want to let go of the pieces. Now I understand there is a solvent that will release the caulking. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26376|26344|2011-08-02 14:26:25|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Doug: the stuff i was thinking of is not the PL Premium adhesive--it was a caulking. Will try and drop by HD and see what it is called. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug - SubmarineBoat.com To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 5:47 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjUgDqKc0x4 And thanks for the polyurethane tips Mark. I score 2 free cases of PL Premium adhesive today from the makers in return for their using my video of testing that stuff for sales training. Doug SubmarineBoat.com --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why not and it is fine so far. Rather a formidable adhesive ie had to remove two portlights because of some new construction and it really didn't want to let go of the pieces. Now I understand there is a solvent that will release the caulking. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26377|26344|2011-08-02 16:41:39|Doug Jackson|Re: Window sealant|Sure it's not the same stuff? PL Premium comes in a caulking tube. This: http://www.amazon.com/Henkel-828471-Polyurethane-Construction-10-2-Ounce/dp/B0002YVJG8 Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, August 2, 2011 1:26:38 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Doug: the stuff i was thinking of is not the PL Premium adhesive--it was a caulking. Will try and drop by HD and see what it is called. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug - SubmarineBoat.com To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 5:47 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjUgDqKc0x4 And thanks for the polyurethane tips Mark. I score 2 free cases of PL Premium adhesive today from the makers in return for their using my video of testing that stuff for sales training. Doug SubmarineBoat.com --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot >for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, >under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to >isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any >in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a >tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why >not and it is fine so far. Rather a formidable adhesive ie had to remove two >portlights because of some new construction and it really didn't want to let go >of the pieces. Now I understand there is a solvent that will release the >caulking. 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] | 26378|26344|2011-08-02 19:13:10|brentswain38|Re: Window sealant|The cheaper, beige Premium is called construction adhesive,and is no where near as good as the stuff available in colours other than beige --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Sure it's not the same stuff? PL Premium comes in a caulking tube. > > This: http://www.amazon.com/Henkel-828471-Polyurethane-Construction-10-2-Ounce/dp/B0002YVJG8 > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Mark Hamill > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, August 2, 2011 1:26:38 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant > > > Doug: the stuff i was thinking of is not the PL Premium adhesive--it was a > caulking. Will try and drop by HD and see what it is called. MarkH > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doug - SubmarineBoat.com > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 5:47 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant > > I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! > Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 > feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjUgDqKc0x4 > > And thanks for the polyurethane tips Mark. I score 2 free cases of PL Premium > adhesive today from the makers in return for their using my video of testing > that stuff for sales training. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot > >for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, > >under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to > >isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any > >in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a > >tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why > >not and it is fine so far. Rather a formidable adhesive ie had to remove two > >portlights because of some new construction and it really didn't want to let go > >of the pieces. Now I understand there is a solvent that will release the > >caulking. 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] > | 26379|26350|2011-08-02 19:14:38|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar Update|Try Redden Net in Campbell River. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > For BC peoples Information: > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that carries Wasser Ccoatings. Color Your World no longer exists and ICI Paints carries only epoxy tar same for Industrial Plastics, General, Cloverdale, Home Despot :), Home Hardware. > I contacted Wasser in Washington 1-800-627-2968 and got some US prices but these cannot compete with local prices on epoxy tar unfortunatly or so would seem unless one was in the locale of Auburn Washington on a trip. Prebond 53.32, Tar 58.57, Thinner 27.02 Thinner 100--36.92 and the amount for PURQuik accelerator is 11.01 I think. > I am waiting for somebody in Vancouver to come back from a vacation for a price there and they are the only local suppliers or so it would seem. I was talking to Kevin Grillo in Washington kgrillo@... > Anybody find out anything different?? MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26380|26350|2011-08-02 19:17:12|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar Update|While the Alberta Tar sands keep sending tar balls down the rivers of northern Alberta. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Tar based paints are being discontinued by a lot of the paint companies > due to environmental concerns with the tar. My guess is that in a few > more years, you may not be able to get them at all. > > The new high solids epoxies are very good and well proven. I would have > no problem using any of the epoxies developed for splash zones on > offshore oil rigs. If it will work there, it will work on a yacht. > Altex or PPG (formerly Ameron) are two good names. I found the yacht > brands like International are too expensive.... > > Cheers, Paul > > On 28/07/2011 7:25 a.m., PAUL LIEBENBERG wrote: > > > > You could check out rivera coatings. I believe a similar product. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Mark Hamill > > > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:33 am > > Subject: [origamiboats] Wasser Tar Update > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > For BC peoples Information: > > > I have contacted most of the major paint suppliers in the > > > Courtenay , BC area and have been unable to find one that > > > carries Wasser Ccoatings. > > > > > | 26381|26357|2011-08-02 19:22:27|brentswain38|Re: spray foam|Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sitefix" wrote: > > well i am glad to hear the price is more or less on target, hopefully brent or a previous builder will chime in and provide an average square foot requirement for the 36. i am not sure how to do the math with the pilot house and such. > thanks for the thots so far. > frank > | 26382|26369|2011-08-02 19:24:46|brentswain38|Re: mast location|For a fin keeler, step the mast where the leading edge of the keel meets the hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > could you tell me if there is a rule of thumb to locate the mast on deck(for a sloop), I presume you have to take in consideration the location of ballast. > > Martin. > | 26383|26344|2011-08-02 19:25:53|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Doug: this is the DAP product I used-- www.homedepot.ca/product/300ml-white-polyurethane-waterproof-adhesive-sealant/941863 MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26384|26369|2011-08-02 19:28:11|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > Think windsurfing... > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is)  this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26385|26385|2011-08-02 19:56:01|brentswain38|Technique|I have seen people waste huge amounts of time trying to make things look pretty while working on them. The only thing which has to look pretty is the finished product. As Picasso so eloquently stated "Fools and children should never be allowed to see a work of art incomplete." An example is putting the back on a wheelhouse. One can cut it for a perfect fit , waste a huge amount of time and money grinding and cleaning it, then find it is a half inch too small. Or, one a can leave it long on all sides, tack it in from the inside, fully weld the inside, with the extra material drawing away the excess heat, making the welding much easier, trim the outside flush ,then grind and weld the outside. The only thing which needs to be ground clean are edges which can't be ground later. This saves a huge mount of time , potential for error, and makes grinding a lot safer, as with something welded down, there is no chance of it slipping and causing you to grind a chunk out of yourself. The same works with keels. There is no point in grinding the top smooth, as it is to be cut of later anyway. Ditto a lot of metal bits and pieces. Looks rough in the building stage, but the end result is the same with more money left in the pockets of the owner.I have no interest in costing an owner $30 an hour top make things look irrelevantly pretty in the building stage, in a way which has no effect on the finished product.| 26386|26344|2011-08-03 13:56:19|Matt Malone|Re: Window sealant|I will buy a tube of this to try out on some test pieces. I have some windows to put on a small boat. I had used (gasp) silicon, bathroom type, on my last boat window project and then heard about the infiltration problem with silicon oil and fibreglass. If it is the same price as silicon at the Home Despot, then, one less thing to worry about. I am not ready to go Doug's route and do sikaflex, do not have that much cash. I figure that I will use chicken bolts, in the holes where there were bolts before, but lay the UV-resistant lexan on the outside of the hull instead of the crumbling wood frame that is there. Even if the commercial sealer leaks on this small boat, there is still lexan bolted over the hole, and that one is not an off-shore cruiser. I will think hard about what I might use on windows on my big boat. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mhamill1@... Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:26:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Doug: this is the DAP product I used-- www.homedepot.ca/product/300ml-white-polyurethane-waterproof-adhesive-sealant/941863 MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26387|26344|2011-08-03 16:16:38|Denis Buggy|Re: Window sealant|DEAR MARK your post is interesting as it illustrates how to get into trouble with sealant --- while employing coroners -lawyers -doctors - shrinks ' - rescue personnel -and undertakers the comments THAT STUFF BETTER HOLD --- and THEY SAID NOT TO USE IT BELOW THE WATERLINE BUT I COULD NOT SEE WHY NOT tell us something . all the discussion up to now could be answered by stating all sealant is junk until I see the data sheet and I then compare all the sealant discussed here already and you would find it is totally unsuitable -- I have yet to hear anybody say they followed instructions on the data sheet ---people are buying tubes of black stuff and spreading it here and there without a clue as to what it does . IMPORTANT STUFF -- gluing anything is 99% planning/preparation and 1% sealant using fantastic sikaflex on old oilbased paint will mean you glue something which sticks with 1160 PSI to shit . the shit will give the sika will not . 1160 psi is the weight of 12 people suspended from 1 inch square -- the data sheet will say 8 / nmm2 . I have to use air power applicators which squeeze a 600mm sausage in a metal tube as I cannot get it to stick if I do not have it tacky before sticking if I delay it will form a light skin and you might as well use yoghurt to stick it . if you manage to do your business in 7 minutes using a hand powered applicator then -- fine it will stick but only to a grease free surface that is pure --- pure means bare clean oil free metal or 2 pack primered metal which has been cleaned with a degreaser and allowed to evaporate -- this type is used by your local car bodyshop-- not the water-soluble degreaser which leaves a residue ---- many people use meths and let it evaporate fully before sika . if your surfaces are HONEST /CLEAN / WITH GRIP / LIGHTLY ABRADED /SANDED then the glue is only what sits in between the HONEST surfaces an honest surface is not cheap household chalky powdery primer painted on to metal it is etch primed or two pack primed metal . you can buy shit and use it and you can use so called good sealant and read the data sheet and see it has a tensile strength of a ripe peach when hard or you can fit the sealant to the job by reading the data sheet and be doing what you should to keep the boat from being a deathtrap tacked together by black nameless shit . which will be christened by somebody dealing with the aftermath. RE SUB I find it hard to believe a person would make such a wonderful thing as a sub and not care if it falls apart because they would not read a data sheet before gluing it together . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why not and it is fine so far. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26388|26344|2011-08-03 17:00:03|brentswain38|Re: Window sealant|I tried etch primer on steel once, a big mistake. The etching kept on happening behind the paint, and the paint fell off in sheets. Friends who used it all had similar results. It is often much softer than epoxies put over it, so it causes the epoxy to chip more readily. Those who avoided etch primers had much greater success, and no problems. AVOID ETCH PRIMER ON STEEL, AT ALL COSTS. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > DEAR MARK > your post is interesting as it illustrates how to get into trouble with sealant --- while employing coroners -lawyers -doctors - shrinks ' - rescue personnel -and undertakers > the comments THAT STUFF BETTER HOLD --- and THEY SAID NOT TO USE IT BELOW THE WATERLINE BUT I COULD NOT SEE WHY NOT tell us something . > all the discussion up to now could be answered by stating all sealant is junk until I see the data sheet and I then compare all the sealant discussed here already and you would find it is totally unsuitable -- > I have yet to hear anybody say they followed instructions on the data sheet ---people are buying tubes of black stuff and spreading it here and there without a clue as to what it does . > IMPORTANT STUFF -- > gluing anything is 99% planning/preparation and 1% sealant > using fantastic sikaflex on old oilbased paint will mean you glue something which sticks with 1160 PSI to shit . the shit will give the sika will not . > 1160 psi is the weight of 12 people suspended from 1 inch square -- the data sheet will say 8 / nmm2 . > I have to use air power applicators which squeeze a 600mm sausage in a metal tube as I cannot get it to stick if I do not have it tacky before sticking if I delay it will form a light skin and you might as well use yoghurt to stick it . > if you manage to do your business in 7 minutes using a hand powered applicator then -- fine it will stick but only to a grease free surface that is pure --- pure means bare clean oil free metal or 2 pack primered metal which has been cleaned with a degreaser and allowed to evaporate -- this type is used by your local car bodyshop-- not the water-soluble degreaser which leaves a residue ---- many people use meths and let it evaporate fully before sika . > if your surfaces are HONEST /CLEAN / WITH GRIP / LIGHTLY ABRADED /SANDED then the glue is only what sits in between the HONEST surfaces > an honest surface is not cheap household chalky powdery primer painted on to metal it is etch primed or two pack primed metal . > you can buy shit and use it and you can use so called good sealant and read the data sheet and see it has a tensile strength of a ripe peach when hard or you can fit the sealant to the job by reading the data sheet and be doing what you should to keep the boat from being a deathtrap tacked together by black nameless shit . > which will be christened by somebody dealing with the aftermath. > RE SUB I find it hard to believe a person would make such a wonderful thing as a sub and not care if it falls apart because they would not read a data sheet before gluing it together . > regards Denis Buggy > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Hamill > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:26 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant > > > > I just got done using Sika on my submarine's view ports. That stuff better hold! Just the primer was over $100 the tubes were $14 each and you only get about 6 feet of bead per tube. Here's a video if you got some time to burn: > For what its worth, I have used the polyurathanes caulking sold at Home Despot for quite a few years on all my boatwork on the cat--deadlights, portlights, under/above water thru hull fittings, pads and cleats, rudder fittings and to isolate metal fasteners from each other so they don't react. I haven't used any in 4 or so years but everything is fine so far and it was about $5 something a tube back then. They said not to use it below the waterline but couldn't see why not and it is fine so far. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26389|26369|2011-08-03 17:03:16|brentswain38|Re: mast location|With extremely high aspect ratio keels and , or, small fore triangles, the mast may belong ahead of the leading edge of the keel. Comparisons with similar boats is far more accurate than any mathematical calculations. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is)  this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26390|26344|2011-08-03 19:32:16|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Denis: The oldest pieces of immersed fittings using the polyurethane I mentioned is from 1994 on the knotmeter, depthsounder, portlights, deadlights and rudder fittings. Still in great conditon. Wouldn't hesitate to use it for the same purposes again. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26391|26391|2011-08-03 20:03:36|Pierre|Twin keel reversing|Here is a simple question for you guys, How does the twin keel handle in reverse? Are they impossible to control?(like a full keel) Or are they more like fin keels? Thanks, Pierre| 26392|26344|2011-08-04 04:09:43|Denis Buggy|Re: Window sealant|DEAR MARK point taken and "" time tells all"" with your sealant -- if I merely send a one liner------ -read a data sheet before using anything on a boat or yourself ---------. it is the same message but will not help or explain --- if I say do not use this because "" the Spanish inquisition will sit in court then cut off your goolies and burn you at the stake "" it helps to alert the asleep that it is time to wake up and read some basic information to save some money and to do a job that will survive a storm -- there are times when it would suit you that the boat did not fall apart . DEAR BRENT brent if you read the data sheet for etch primer --it will tell you what surfaces it should be used on -- also the data sheet for 2 pack primer all from the best paint co in the world AKZO NOBEL --they have a dedicated marine paint website which is sub divided into the various companies they own such as the famous AWLGRIP co who make the favourite marine paint of the super rich for their floating palaces -- they have 32 manufacturing plants worldwide and all queries re paint and metal coating can be answered on their various websites -------the surfaces I paint are washed commercially usually every second day by 3 phase powerwashes using hot water -- we have had problems with primers and have learned the hard way what works and what does not --- what AKZA NOBEL state in their clear and easy to follow data sheets works if you really really really do what they tell you to do and that is the hard bit doing what you should instead of doing what you want to do . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Denis: The oldest pieces of immersed fittings using the polyurethane I mentioned is from 1994 on the knotmeter, depthsounder, portlights, deadlights and rudder fittings. Still in great conditon. Wouldn't hesitate to use it for the same purposes again. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26393|26344|2011-08-04 09:31:54|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Window sealant|Okay, who is doing their windows now? I have a caulking cartridge and a half of Dow 739 special plastic silicone made just for plastic windows. I finished my two windows (half a tube) and had a real bad problem with 739 that wouldn’t cure because it was past it’s expiration date! Dow sent me a new tube and I bought another also. This stuff has a date of April 2012, and I’ll ship it free, along with the can of primer to whoever can use it now. Gary H. Lucas From: Matt Malone Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:56 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant I will buy a tube of this to try out on some test pieces. I have some windows to put on a small boat. I had used (gasp) silicon, bathroom type, on my last boat window project and then heard about the infiltration problem with silicon oil and fibreglass. If it is the same price as silicon at the Home Despot, then, one less thing to worry about. I am not ready to go Doug's route and do sikaflex, do not have that much cash. I figure that I will use chicken bolts, in the holes where there were bolts before, but lay the UV-resistant lexan on the outside of the hull instead of the crumbling wood frame that is there. Even if the commercial sealer leaks on this small boat, there is still lexan bolted over the hole, and that one is not an off-shore cruiser. I will think hard about what I might use on windows on my big boat. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com From: mailto:mhamill1%40telus.net Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:26:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Doug: this is the DAP product I used-- www.homedepot.ca/product/300ml-white-polyurethane-waterproof-adhesive-sealant/941863 MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26394|26344|2011-08-04 11:09:50|Matt Malone|Re: Window sealant|Thank you Gary, I for one am in the middle of welding a cradle for my big boat, and given the limitations on how many trailers I can have in the driveway at once, I will not be getting to windows on said small boat until late in the fall, if not next spring. There are many other things on the list for me, unfortunately. I save these messages and advice away in appropriate folders related to projects, so that when I get to projects I can re-read them and have the benefit of everyone's suggestions. I am only now putting into practice the suggestions on 1/8" 6011 welding rod, which, along with some help from a pro, and understanding my welder better, is working really well for me. I will still go back over it with 7018 AC later to make it look beautiful, and to thicken the fillets/beads. I am finally trying vertical and even overhead welds, and it is working out OK. So I will say thank you for your generous offer but I will have to pass on the opportunity for some good silicone. I cannot guarantee, in fact, I am reasonably sure, I will not get to my small-boat window project before April 2012. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gary.lucas@... Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:40:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Okay, who is doing their windows now? I have a caulking cartridge and a half of Dow 739 special plastic silicone made just for plastic windows. I finished my two windows (half a tube) and had a real bad problem with 739 that wouldn�t cure because it was past it�s expiration date! Dow sent me a new tube and I bought another also. This stuff has a date of April 2012, and I�ll ship it free, along with the can of primer to whoever can use it now. Gary H. Lucas ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt Malone Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:56 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant I will buy a tube of this to try out on some test pieces. I have some windows to put on a small boat. I had used (gasp) silicon, bathroom type, on my last boat window project and then heard about the infiltration problem with silicon oil and fibreglass. If it is the same price as silicon at the Home Despot, then, one less thing to worry about. I am not ready to go Doug's route and do sikaflex, do not have that much cash. I figure that I will use chicken bolts, in the holes where there were bolts before, but lay the UV-resistant lexan on the outside of the hull instead of the crumbling wood frame that is there. Even if the commercial sealer leaks on this small boat, there is still lexan bolted over the hole, and that one is not an off-shore cruiser. I will think hard about what I might use on windows on my big boat. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com From: mailto:mhamill1%40telus.net Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:26:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Doug: this is the DAP product I used-- www.homedepot.ca/product/300ml-white-polyurethane-waterproof-adhesive-sealant/941863 MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26395|26344|2011-08-04 12:58:46|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Gary: i used to work in a yacht building company and I noticed that almost all of the Sikaflex was expired and we used it anyway-- and when I started looking around several chandlers alot of theirs was expired as well. One had to go through all the tubes to find ones that were OK. I think it was one tube in 6. So all of you out there may want to pay attention to the dates--I was really surprised by this. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26396|26391|2011-08-04 17:42:38|Paul Wilson|Re: Twin keel reversing|I can't say anything about the twin keel but I can say that my fin keeler with prop coming out of the back of the keel is a real bugger to back up. If the prop came out in the skeg nearer the rudder it might be better. The large skeg is great at sea though....she goes like an arrow... Paul On 4/08/2011 12:03 p.m., Pierre wrote: > > Here is a simple question for you guys, > > How does the twin keel handle in reverse? > Are they impossible to control?(like a full keel) > Or are they more like fin keels? > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > | 26397|26344|2011-08-04 21:26:25|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Window sealant|Mark, I got held up installing my windows last season, and didn’t realize the tubes had expired. I installed two windows this year and a week later the sealant was exactly like silly putty! Two weeks late it was the same. It was Dow tech support that alerted me to the lot number and expiration on the tube. It took me 6 hours to strip it all off and clean up the mess. Gary H. Lucas From: Mark Hamill Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:58 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Gary: i used to work in a yacht building company and I noticed that almost all of the Sikaflex was expired and we used it anyway-- and when I started looking around several chandlers alot of theirs was expired as well. One had to go through all the tubes to find ones that were OK. I think it was one tube in 6. So all of you out there may want to pay attention to the dates--I was really surprised by this. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26398|26391|2011-08-05 08:05:12|steve|Re: Twin keel reversing|My twin keel with prop just ahead of the rudder in a skeg aperture handles not as well as a lightweight finkeeler in reverse but better than a heavy full-keel boat. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > Here is a simple question for you guys, > > How does the twin keel handle in reverse? > Are they impossible to control?(like a full keel) > Or are they more like fin keels? > > Thanks, > > Pierre > | 26399|26391|2011-08-05 10:20:03|Pierre|Re: Twin keel reversing|Thanks for your input guys, It's great to have a good community around such a good boat... It's really nice to know for a future builder that all my question will be answered. Pierre,| 26400|26344|2011-08-05 12:21:22|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Gary: I discovered the expiry date problem when I bought some tubes and one had set up and I then noticed the expiry date--two years out of date--When we started to look of their tubes on the shelf all were expired --one was 3 years out of date. Live and learn. Now hot dogs are altogether a different story. Wasn't a package found in a dump that was 25 years old and still fine--perhaps hot dog portlight gaskets??:) MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26401|26344|2011-08-05 12:43:49|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Caulk softeners http://www.colored-caulk.com/3M-Caulk-Softener-and-Remover.html http://www.dap.com/product_details.aspx?product_id=12 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26402|26344|2011-08-05 13:01:47|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|Gary: Removing silicon caulk http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Silicone-Caulk-Solvent RTV and silicon remover http://www.rpm-technology.com/Digesil/Digesil.htm?gclid=CNbNx7zQuKoCFcPBKgodmAxO7g [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26403|26391|2011-08-05 17:32:01|brentswain38|Re: Twin keel reversing|I have had no problems reversing. It initially, pulls a bit one way, but with the slightest way on , I throw her in neutral and she steers straight.Works best with short bursts of power, initially. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > Thanks for your input guys, > > It's great to have a good community around such a good boat... > It's really nice to know for a future builder that all my > question will be answered. > > Pierre, > | 26404|26350|2011-08-05 18:03:51|badpirate36|Re: Wasser Tar Update|preparing the hull for spray foaming; I am wondering about Wasser's mc-tar compatibility with aluminium, their web site indicates it would be suitable for aluminium, although it also mentions "iron oxide"(is there iron in that? /.o) Have any of you had any experience with epoxy tar on aluminium? I have been planning on using interlux's system(vinylux primewash, interprotect 2000e) on the interior because it has worked well on the bottom under my antifouling(trilux2) Which would work best? All things being equal, Interlux is wrote: > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. > What to foam and how thick; I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be sufficient. Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if doing it again? Thanx Tom| 26406|26344|2011-08-05 22:02:48|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Window sealant|Mark, Removing the caulk was easy, it was literally just like silly putty. The tough part was the adhesive from the foam tape that secured the windows until the caulk cures. Gary H. Lucas From: Mark Hamill Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:01 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant Gary: Removing silicon caulk http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Silicone-Caulk-Solvent RTV and silicon remover http://www.rpm-technology.com/Digesil/Digesil.htm?gclid=CNbNx7zQuKoCFcPBKgodmAxO7g [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26407|26357|2011-08-06 19:59:54|brentswain38|Re: spray foam|Every square inch of metal abouve the floorboards has to be covered in sprayfoam. A piece of metal the size of your fingernail will drip condensation like a leaky faucet, if it doesnt have at least a half inch of foam over it. If you trim the foam on your stringers and deck beams flush , a layer of ice will form on that point in your panneling and will turn the paneling black . Don't let the foamer leave until you have triple checked everywhere. Aluminium is much worse in that regard. Caned spray foam works on steel , but on aluminium it acts like a sponge, and becomes soaked with soggy condensation. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. > > > > What to foam and how thick; > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be sufficient. > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if doing it again? > > Thanx > Tom > | 26408|26350|2011-08-06 20:17:56|brentswain38|Re: Wasser Tar Update|I've found epoxy tar sticks well to aluminium. Washing it with vinegar to get the oxide off would help a lot. Foam doesn't appear to stick to aluminium all that well. I've wiped it off with my hand. Bruce Cope, of Cope aluminium yachts told me he wasn't that impressed with etch primer on aluminium. On steel it's a disaster. Bruce said light sandblasting was the best way to get anything to stick to aluminium. A friend used interprotect 2000E on steel, below the waterline, and it stuck like shit to a blanket for many years. I may try it in the future. Etch primer is much softer than most epoxies, so you would be better off without it. Sandblasted metal needs no etching. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > preparing the hull for spray foaming; > > I am wondering about Wasser's mc-tar compatibility with aluminium, their web site indicates it would be suitable for aluminium, although it also mentions "iron oxide"(is there iron in that? /.o) Have any of you had any experience with epoxy tar on aluminium? > > I have been planning on using interlux's system(vinylux primewash, interprotect 2000e) on the interior because it has worked well on the bottom under my antifouling(trilux2) > > Which would work best? All things being equal, Interlux is > Thanx > Tom > | 26409|19001|2011-08-06 20:36:08|brentswain38|Common screwups|I remember working with Evan on one boat. I let Evan make up the foredeck, and when it came time to put it in, it was massively overweight. He had welded a huge amount of extra flatbar on it. When I asked him why , he said people didn't want the deck to spring any. When , under construction, or finished? Under construction, the foredeck does spring a bit, but once the cabin is attached to the aft end , it is as stiff as a brick. The cabin sides combined with the top and side decks make up a massively strong longitudinal girder, which are supported by the mast support pipes, running down to the chines. The font end of this girder holds up the back end of the foredeck, making it immensely strong and resistant to any springiness. The forward end is supported by the aft end of the anchor well, a bulkhead on edge. It is also supported to some extent by the mooring bit, making the remaining distance , well curved and short, with zero springiness. I remember one builder putting in a large number of gussets along the side decks to keep it stiff, before the cabin sides went on, when the cabin sides, supported by a couple of support pipes to the chine would have made it far stiffer than any number of gussets ever could have done. Then there's the problem of condensation on the hard to hide steel gussets. Making things stiff before the shell is complete is a huge waste of time , effort, expense and weight. Many of the components support one another once the entire structure is together, far beter than any interim supports. That is the principle of the origami structural advantage. Again Picasso's comment comes to mind. "Fools and children should never be allowed to see a work of art incomplete. "| 26410|26410|2011-08-07 08:13:27|Pierre|anchor well|Is there a good reason to have an anchor well if you have the anchor winch with all your rode on it? To store more rope for your second anchor maybe? Pierre| 26411|26350|2011-08-07 23:26:43|Matt Malone|Re: Wasser Tar Update|I am guessing a lot of people have used Interprotect 2000E. Here are some of my hints. Stirring: I have an old Sears 1/2" chuck hand drill that I have used for stirring thick stuff like plaster. I have a piece heavy steel wire / thin steel rod originally from an old election sign. I have bent sort of in the same shape as a person's leg when they kneel : 45 degrees at the hips, then a bit more than 135 degrees at the knees, so the lower leg is at right angles to the shaft. I put the shaft in the drill, and used it to stir Interprotect. Keep the rod below the surface, the surface of the pot will circulate down by itself. The knee-toe parts of the rod will stir the bottom corners of the can. If you use it on a plastic container, trim the toe so that the knee is more eccentric and wipes the inside of the container. I purchased both grey and white Interprotect. I contacted the company, and one can mix the grey and white. I did this so that I could alternate colours to make sure that the next coat completely covered the previous one. I did full white, full grey and half and half. With this, it was easy to make sure that each layer got coverage. With a roller, it was very fast. There was a little roughness from the roller. Either sand lightly / knife after every layer or not at all because sanding near the end will sand into small bumps left on the first coat, and one will see the target-shaped pattern of all later layers sanded through. It dries like thick, flat (as in, not gloss) paint. While it is dull-looking, so far, it has been as good as gelcoat for holding out the water. I applied vc17 over it. That looked really nice. Made for a very nice final product. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 00:17:54 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar Update I've found epoxy tar sticks well to aluminium. Washing it with vinegar to get the oxide off would help a lot. Foam doesn't appear to stick to aluminium all that well. I've wiped it off with my hand. Bruce Cope, of Cope aluminium yachts told me he wasn't that impressed with etch primer on aluminium. On steel it's a disaster. Bruce said light sandblasting was the best way to get anything to stick to aluminium. A friend used interprotect 2000E on steel, below the waterline, and it stuck like shit to a blanket for many years. I may try it in the future. Etch primer is much softer than most epoxies, so you would be better off without it. Sandblasted metal needs no etching. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > preparing the hull for spray foaming; > > I am wondering about Wasser's mc-tar compatibility with aluminium, their web site indicates it would be suitable for aluminium, although it also mentions "iron oxide"(is there iron in that? /.o) Have any of you had any experience with epoxy tar on aluminium? > > I have been planning on using interlux's system(vinylux primewash, interprotect 2000e) on the interior because it has worked well on the bottom under my antifouling(trilux2) > > Which would work best? All things being equal, Interlux is > Thanx > Tom > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26412|26410|2011-08-08 17:09:44|brentswain38|Re: anchor well|Yes, It's for storing rode for a second anchor, or quickly accessible shore line, ready for quick emergency use. I remember sailing up the east coast of New Zealand on an offshore wind, from Whangarei. The chain had jammed the hawse pipe I was using then, so I piled it on the foredeck in a shallow box I had built there. No problem going up the coast, so I forgot about it. When I tuned to head into the Bay of Islands into a 25 knot headwind, the works, 200 ft of chain, went overboard. It was a bitch trying to get it back aboard while beating into a head wind. I thought how dense it was to have the only place one can safely store stuff, a long walk to the cockpit and back. European boats mostly have foredeck wells in only their more expensive boats. Mine holds not only the spare anchor rode , but a 30 lb kellet, and an extension handle for the winch. as well as the only vent capable of getting air into the end of the boat. I would hate to have to walk all the way back to the cockpit to pick up a kellet or the winch handle extension ,or have a moldy dead end in the forpeak. I wouldn't be without my fordeck well. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" wrote: > > Is there a good reason to have an anchor well if you have the > anchor winch with all your rode on it? > > To store more rope for your second anchor maybe? > > Pierre > | 26413|26357|2011-08-08 17:48:55|brentswain38|Re: spray foam|I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place foam. Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as that greatly increases its resistance to fire. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. > > > > What to foam and how thick; > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be sufficient. > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if doing it again? > > Thanx > Tom > | 26414|26344|2011-08-08 17:56:31|brentswain38|Re: Window sealant|I just thought of another way of making sure you don't squish all the caulking out. You could stretch an O ring over the bolts before bolting them down. Then you would have an O ring seal, along with caulking on both sides of the O ring. I remember once seeing O ring on a roll, sold by the foot. You just super glue the ends together. Another option is to cut rings out of an old inner tube and stretch those around the bolts. That would eliminate the chance of squishing all the caulking out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Gary: I discovered the expiry date problem when I bought some tubes and one had set up and I then noticed the expiry date--two years out of date--When we started to look of their tubes on the shelf all were expired --one was 3 years out of date. Live and learn. Now hot dogs are altogether a different story. Wasn't a package found in a dump that was 25 years old and still fine--perhaps hot dog portlight gaskets??:) MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26415|26369|2011-08-09 09:21:24|martin demers|Re: mast location|Hi Brent, I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > Think windsurfing... > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26416|26369|2011-08-09 15:09:45|Matt Malone|Re: mast location|I am interested in this too. I have a classic shape cruiser with a long aft overhang and would like to mount a second rudder more easily operated on a wind vane, and for emergency steering. I have considered making at least a little skeg, to mount pivots in, but in any case, this rudder will have to be very long, with a high aspect ratio to keep the weight down, not upset the balance of the boat too much, and be hydro-dynamically efficient. I was also thinking of making it a balanced-at-the-pivot-design with a fraction of its area forward of the pivot, to partially cancel the restoring torque, so that it requires little effort to turn it. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:21:16 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > Hi Brent, > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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]| 26417|26344|2011-08-09 16:52:41|Donal|Re: Window sealant|> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: >When we started to look of their tubes on the shelf all were expired --one was 3 years out of date. Live and learn. Now hot dogs are altogether a different story. Wasn't a package found in a dump that was 25 years old and still fine--perhaps hot dog portlight gaskets??:) MarkH Mark, I have a friend who many, many years ago worked on the team that developed Cool Whip. He said they have it refrigerated because it implies that it is fresh. He told me you could leave it outside over the summer in Phoenix and would be just fine on your pie in the fall. He also helped develop an orange-like drink that became the biggest selling "breakfast" drink in the market. All the flavoring was artificial. The only thing real was the grapefruit pulp that gave it that fresh squeezed look, feel. He had a change of heart and has gone on to do valuable work in the environmental and energy fields. I just read that three billion hot dogs are sold every year in the US. Get a hot dog stand/trailer and you can make enough (so I'm told) to afford to work weekends and build a boat during the remaining 5 days. Then sell the cart and go cruising. donal| 26418|26357|2011-08-09 16:57:01|badpirate36|Re: spray foam|Thanx for the reply Brent, I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. > It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place foam. > Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as that greatly increases its resistance to fire. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. > > > > > > > What to foam and how thick; > > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be sufficient. > > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if doing it again? > > > > Thanx > > Tom > > > | 26419|26350|2011-08-09 17:11:51|badpirate36|Re: Wasser Tar Update|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I am guessing a lot of people have used Interprotect 2000E. Here are some of my hints. > > Stirring: I have an old Sears 1/2" chuck hand drill that I have used for stirring thick stuff like plaster. I have a piece heavy steel wire / thin steel rod originally from an old election sign. I have bent sort of in the same shape as a person's leg when they kneel : 45 degrees at the hips, then a bit more than 135 degrees at the knees, so the lower leg is at right angles to the shaft. I put the shaft in the drill, and used it to stir Interprotect. Keep the rod below the surface, the surface of the pot will circulate down by itself. The knee-toe parts of the rod will stir the bottom corners of the can. If you use it on a plastic container, trim the toe so that the knee is more eccentric and wipes the inside of the container. > > I purchased both grey and white Interprotect. I contacted the company, and one can mix the grey and white. I did this so that I could alternate colours to make sure that the next coat completely covered the previous one. I did full white, full grey and half and half. With this, it was easy to make sure that each layer got coverage. With a roller, it was very fast. There was a little roughness from the roller. Either sand lightly / knife after every layer or not at all because sanding near the end will sand into small bumps left on the first coat, and one will see the target-shaped pattern of all later layers sanded through. > > It dries like thick, flat (as in, not gloss) paint. While it is dull-looking, so far, it has been as good as gelcoat for holding out the water. I applied vc17 over it. That looked really nice. Made for a very nice final product. > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 00:17:54 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wasser Tar Update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've found epoxy tar sticks well to aluminium. Washing it with vinegar to get the oxide off would help a lot. Foam doesn't appear to stick to aluminium all that well. I've wiped it off with my hand. > > Bruce Cope, of Cope aluminium yachts told me he wasn't that impressed with etch primer on aluminium. On steel it's a disaster. > > Bruce said light sandblasting was the best way to get anything to stick to aluminium. > > A friend used interprotect 2000E on steel, below the waterline, and it stuck like shit to a blanket for many years. I may try it in the future. > > Etch primer is much softer than most epoxies, so you would be better off without it. Sandblasted metal needs no etching. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > preparing the hull for spray foaming; > > > > > > I am wondering about Wasser's mc-tar compatibility with aluminium, their web site indicates it would be suitable for aluminium, although it also mentions "iron oxide"(is there iron in that? /.o) Have any of you had any experience with epoxy tar on aluminium? > > > > > > I have been planning on using interlux's system(vinylux primewash, interprotect 2000e) on the interior because it has worked well on the bottom under my antifouling(trilux2) > > > > > > Which would work best? All things being equal, Interlux is > > > > > Thanx > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26420|26369|2011-08-09 18:15:40|brentswain38|Re: mast location|I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26421|26369|2011-08-09 18:17:49|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Balanced rudders work well in most parts of the world, but here in BC there are too many floating things to hit or foul it ,for me to feel comfortable with one. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I am interested in this too. I have a classic shape cruiser with a long aft overhang and would like to mount a second rudder more easily operated on a wind vane, and for emergency steering. I have considered making at least a little skeg, to mount pivots in, but in any case, this rudder will have to be very long, with a high aspect ratio to keep the weight down, not upset the balance of the boat too much, and be hydro-dynamically efficient. I was also thinking of making it a balanced-at-the-pivot-design with a fraction of its area forward of the pivot, to partially cancel the restoring torque, so that it requires little effort to turn it. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: mdemers2005@... > > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:21:16 -0400 > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26422|26357|2011-08-09 18:22:17|brentswain38|Re: spray foam|A freind who used the two cylindres said it was great stuff, and easy to use, at half the price of a commercial sprayfoamer.I don't know how porous it is, but being mixed in the nozzle, I doubt it is much different form the commercial sprayfoamers stuff. I'd leave them out in the sun to warm up a bit. The commercial stuff goes in hot. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. > > It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place foam. > > Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as that greatly increases its resistance to fire. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and wheelhouse on a 36. > > > > > > > > > > What to foam and how thick; > > > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be sufficient. > > > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if doing it again? > > > > > > Thanx > > > Tom > > > > > > | 26423|26369|2011-08-09 18:34:35|martin demers|Re: mast location|ok, thanks. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:15:28 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26424|26357|2011-08-09 19:39:10|Mark Hamill|Re: spray foam|I notice that one of the Rivenco foams is fire retardant--Two-Component E84 Class 1 Spray Foam. Great find. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26425|26357|2011-08-09 20:34:51|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Re: spray foam|Tom- I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer will likely do a better job with less waste. Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. Paul > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll > increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth > to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company > www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in > two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of > spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or > used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of >> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned >> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >> foam. >> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> > > >> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >> wheelhouse on a 36. >> > > >> > >> > What to foam and how thick; >> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >> sufficient. >> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >> doing it again? >> > >> > Thanx >> > Tom >> > >> > > > | 26426|26357|2011-08-09 20:35:40|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Re: spray foam|Tom- I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer will likely do a better job with less waste. Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. Paul > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll > increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth > to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company > www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in > two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of > spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or > used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of >> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned >> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >> foam. >> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> > > >> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >> wheelhouse on a 36. >> > > >> > >> > What to foam and how thick; >> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >> sufficient. >> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >> doing it again? >> > >> > Thanx >> > Tom >> > >> > > > | 26427|26357|2011-08-09 20:36:14|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Re: spray foam|Tom- I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer will likely do a better job with less waste. Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. Paul > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll > increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth > to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company > www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in > two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of > spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or > used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of >> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned >> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >> foam. >> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> > > >> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >> wheelhouse on a 36. >> > > >> > >> > What to foam and how thick; >> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >> sufficient. >> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >> doing it again? >> > >> > Thanx >> > Tom >> > >> > > > | 26428|26357|2011-08-09 20:37:02|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Re: spray foam|Tom- I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer will likely do a better job with less waste. Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. Paul > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll > increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth > to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company > www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in > two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of > spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or > used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of >> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned >> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >> foam. >> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> > > >> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >> wheelhouse on a 36. >> > > >> > >> > What to foam and how thick; >> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >> sufficient. >> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >> doing it again? >> > >> > Thanx >> > Tom >> > >> > > > | 26429|26357|2011-08-09 20:40:59|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Re: spray foam|Tom- I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer will likely do a better job with less waste. Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. Paul > Thanx for the reply Brent, > I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. I'll > increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam depth > to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. > > You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company > www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in > two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type of > spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or > used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site > > Tom > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity of >> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with canned >> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >> foam. >> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> > > >> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >> wheelhouse on a 36. >> > > >> > >> > What to foam and how thick; >> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >> sufficient. >> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >> doing it again? >> > >> > Thanx >> > Tom >> > >> > > > | 26430|26357|2011-08-09 20:44:26|paulcotter@acsalaska.net|Sorry about the replicated message - No idea what happened|> Tom- > > I've used several of these 2-part polyurethanes. They work great for many > applications. For better or worse, they can't be modified to account for conditions > in which they are being sprayed. I can get a really good price on them, but I still > can't compete on price with the commercial sprayers. And a good commercial sprayer > will likely do a better job with less waste. > > Perhaps you can get them cheaper, though. > > Paul > > >> Thanx for the reply Brent, >> I had planned on covering all exposed beams and stringers with a 1/4" of foam. >> I'll >> increase this to a 1/2" as you suggested, this will increase the overall foam >> depth >> to 2" but I'm sure you can never have enough foam on a cold night. >> >> You also mentioned commercial spray foamers, I stumbled upon a company >> www.rivenco.com who sells a two part polyurethane sprayfoam product. It comes in >> two pressurised cylinders and has a two week self life after opening. What type >> of >> spray foam do the commercial foamers use? I wonder if anybody has checked into or >> used this product. Rivenco has an excellent how to video on there web site >> >> Tom >> >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>> >>> I met one couple in an aliminium boat who had made the mistake of framing their >>> entire interior in aluminium angle , welded to the hull. The heat conductivity >>> of >>> the aluminium was so great, that the entire surface of the aluminium with >>> canned >>> sprayfoam the sprayfoam became as soggy as a dishrag. When they got home to BC >>> ,they tore that interior out, all the aluminium interior framing, and all the >>> canned foam, and did it properly , then had it commercially sprayfoamd. >>> It wouldn't hurt to put ceramic insulating beads in any paint you put on , but >>> its no substitute for adequate spray foam over any metal Commercially applied >>> sprayfoam is far more closed cell and watertight than canned or poured in place >>> foam. >>> Any foam should be painted with free latex paint from the recycling depot, as >>> that greatly increases its resistance to fire. >>> >>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Under 500 sq ft for the hull and roughly 210 sq ft for the decks cabin and >>> wheelhouse on a 36. >>> > > >>> > >>> > What to foam and how thick; >>> > I understand not foaming the bilge and under the engine makes sense, but what >>> about the anchor locker? should I foam the bulkhead instead, same for the >>> engine room? in my case the living space ends in quarter berths only part way >>> under the cockpit. leaving quite a lot of space aft for engine room and >>> storage. but does it need to be foamed? would foaming the bulkhead be >>> sufficient. >>> > Most people seem to spray foam about 1.5 inches thick. Is the boat warm in >>> winter and cool in the tropics? would any of you increase the thickness if >>> doing it again? >>> > >>> > Thanx >>> > Tom >>> > >>> >> >> >> > > > | 26431|26431|2011-08-10 07:32:20|Kim|Floors in the 26-footer.|Hi Brent ... For your 26-footer: what should be the steel plate thickness for the athwartships floors that fitted inside the hull above the skeg, under the engine beds, at the ends of the water and fuel tanks, etc? Should these floors be further stiffened along their top edges (using, say, a length of angle) (if they're otherwise exposed, such as the ones above the skeg)? Thanks Brent! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 26432|26432|2011-08-10 13:28:43|GP|British Riots|Not boat stuff ...but what the heck ..once in a while... Religion, the opiate of the masses has been outgrown and is no longer an influence on social behaviour. The true eternal opiate for the great swath of humanity is beer. The country need only enter into a social contract with the neighbourhoods of discontent by offering a massive subsidy for the beverage in return for social order. Violate the contract on consequence of loss of barely free beer. A policing force effectively resides in the toughest, most capable in these neighbourhood societies… the youth, instantly…everywhere…at all times. I would imagine a "0" tolerance messing with this deal. There is precedent in past societies to socially engineer the idle masses… the Roman Coliseum comes to mind for example. The behaviour of these masses of lost youth has to come from somehwere self governing... no police force can handle this stuff... Gary| 26433|26432|2011-08-11 05:34:08|Denis Buggy|Re: British Riots|GARY when a group of people meet and discuss strategy and arm themselves with encrypted communications technology and weapons and incendiaries . then travel 30 miles to the main UK SONY warehouse while sending two crews to burn a high rise block of flats containing elderly and babies who cannot run and a bus station in order to tie up the only police in the area after letting the police know what they were going to do . you can call this tactics used to acquire consumer goods for resale at the highest margin possible . there is a entire multi billion dollar industry which depends on these people being viewed as victims in society . if elderly people had the same rights-- comforts-- and food - clothing --and interesting courses to do with the best medical and mental care and hourly inspections to make sure they are ok and safe ====== as prisoners ---and the prisoners had the same conditions as the elderly enjoy today you might see a change . regards Denis Buggy The behaviour of these masses of lost youth has to come from somehwere self governing... no police force can handle this stuff... Gary [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26434|26432|2011-08-11 08:16:17|scott|Re: British Riots|We saw how well this sort of thing worked for the Roman empire. giving free stuff to the masses to control their behaviour is like bribing a child to behave. All your going to do is create an even worse monster. I remember something about the mob and the eventual cost of appeasing it via the gladiatorial games. It only worked for a while and then created a bigger problem than what it was supposed to fix. You don't need to start a free beer program though. Most 1st world countries have under one name or another already started down this road. I know the US certainly has. Elected officials promise more and more free stuff to the poor masses in exchange for votes. It doesn't matter that there isn't the money to pay for the free stuff. I can't belive I actually jumped on this thread :( --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > Not boat stuff ...but what the heck ..once in a while... > > Religion, the opiate of the masses has been outgrown and is no longer an influence on social behaviour. The true eternal opiate for the great swath of humanity is beer. The country need only enter into a social contract with the neighbourhoods of discontent by offering a massive subsidy for the beverage in return for social order. Violate the contract on consequence of loss of barely free beer. A policing force effectively resides in the toughest, most capable in these neighbourhood societies… the youth, instantly…everywhere…at all times. I would imagine a "0" tolerance messing with this deal. There is precedent in past societies to socially engineer the idle masses… the Roman Coliseum comes to mind for example. > > The behaviour of these masses of lost youth has to come from somehwere self governing... no police force can handle this stuff... > > Gary > | 26435|26432|2011-08-11 10:58:23|GP|Re: British Riots|Hey Scott... day later, can't believe I started it myself...but I am putting in some time after a trip back to urban Ontario for a visit and am awaiting a flight back to my boat up on the north coast of BC.... Truly though, the sheer mass of humanity in so many areas of the world just seems to be not manageable when problems arise. Getting off the plane here in Toronto 2 weeks ago, I nearly curled up in a fetal ball on the floor of the cab. Geezus... what a monster this city has become... frightening. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > We saw how well this sort of thing worked for the Roman empire. giving free stuff to the masses to control their behaviour is like bribing a child to behave. All your going to do is create an even worse monster. I remember something about the mob and the eventual cost of appeasing it via the gladiatorial games. It only worked for a while and then created a bigger problem than what it was supposed to fix. > > You don't need to start a free beer program though. Most 1st world countries have under one name or another already started down this road. I know the US certainly has. Elected officials promise more and more free stuff to the poor masses in exchange for votes. It doesn't matter that there isn't the money to pay for the free stuff. > > > I can't belive I actually jumped on this thread :( > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > Not boat stuff ...but what the heck ..once in a while... > > > > Religion, the opiate of the masses has been outgrown and is no longer an influence on social behaviour. The true eternal opiate for the great swath of humanity is beer. The country need only enter into a social contract with the neighbourhoods of discontent by offering a massive subsidy for the beverage in return for social order. Violate the contract on consequence of loss of barely free beer. A policing force effectively resides in the toughest, most capable in these neighbourhood societies… the youth, instantly…everywhere…at all times. I would imagine a "0" tolerance messing with this deal. There is precedent in past societies to socially engineer the idle masses… the Roman Coliseum comes to mind for example. > > > > The behaviour of these masses of lost youth has to come from somehwere self governing... no police force can handle this stuff... > > > > Gary > > > | 26436|26369|2011-08-11 14:35:37|Barney Treadway|Re: mast location|This is not something to guess at by the way. Having a vessel that heads downwind in a big puff can be life threatening. You need to know the center of effort of the sail configurations and the center of resistance below the water. A designer will know where the mast HAS to be according to what type of rig you plan to carry. On 7/30/2011 12:05 PM, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > Think windsurfing... > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort > towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort > forward and turns the craft downwind. > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home > as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card > can be used to: > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared > to the sails.... > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26437|26431|2011-08-11 17:47:38|brentswain38|Re: Floors in the 26-footer.|I'd use 3 /16th or 5mm plate. The tank top stiffens any used for tank ends. For the front web of the engine beds I make it waterproof, so it keeps any engine oil spills under the engine. Run that one as wide as possible to minimize vibration. I continue the ones under the angle engine beds down to the hull, fully welded, so any oil in there wont run around the front web when heeled. Welding a flatbar 90 degrees to the web has the same effect as an angle on top, and wont hurt any. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > For your 26-footer: what should be the steel plate thickness for the athwartships floors that fitted inside the hull above the skeg, under the engine beds, at the ends of the water and fuel tanks, etc? > > Should these floors be further stiffened along their top edges (using, say, a length of angle) (if they're otherwise exposed, such as the ones above the skeg)? > > Thanks Brent! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 26438|26369|2011-08-11 17:57:04|brentswain38|Re: mast location|The method used by most designers to calculate the centre of resistance , both below and above the waterline , is grossly inaccurate, for the reasons I point out in my book. True you don't want to have a boat bear off in puff, but lack of confidence in having a slight weather helm usually results in a designer doing a huge overkill on giving a boat far too much weather helm. One world famous designer, on Gabriola Island BC , suggested one of my 40 footers have her mast located much further aft than I had drawn. The owner asked me about it, and I suggested he ask the designer how much experience he had with this particular design. He followed my advice, put the mast where I had designed it, and said the boat balanced perfectly , and he was sure glad he hadn't followed the advice of the wold famous designer , who's advice would have given him a huge weather helm. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > This is not something to guess at by the way. Having a vessel that heads > downwind in a big puff can be life threatening. You need to know the > center of effort of the sail configurations and the center of resistance > below the water. A designer will know where the mast HAS to be according > to what type of rig you plan to carry. > > On 7/30/2011 12:05 PM, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort > > towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort > > forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home > > as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card > > can be used to: > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared > > to the sails.... > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26439|26431|2011-08-12 00:03:30|Kim|Re: Floors in the 26-footer.|Thanks Brent. I needed to know because I'm about to order the steel for the keels, skeg, rudder, floors, and a few other odds and ends. I think this will be the last of the steel I'll have to buy! :-) Cheers ... Kim. ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I'd use 3 /16th or 5mm plate. The tank top stiffens any used for tank ends. For the front web of the engine beds I make it waterproof, so it keeps any engine oil spills under the engine. Run that one as wide as possible to minimize vibration. I continue the ones under the angle engine beds down to the hull, fully welded, so any oil in there wont run around the front web when heeled. Welding a flatbar 90 degrees to the web has the same effect as an angle on top, and wont hurt any. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > Hi Brent ... > > > > For your 26-footer: what should be the steel plate thickness for the athwartships floors that fitted inside the hull above the skeg, under the engine beds, at the ends of the water and fuel tanks, etc? > > > > Should these floors be further stiffened along their top edges (using, say, a length of angle) (if they're otherwise exposed, such as the ones above the skeg)? > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 26440|26440|2011-08-13 16:37:36|Doug Jackson|1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel.  It keeps insisting on bending only one direction.   We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps.  I know that's a lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being added to the plate.  I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly.  Yeah, upward; the book said it would distort downward.  After that we start adding welds to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction.  This is cold rolled steel.  Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into it's coiled shape?  We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next attempt, but we'd welcome any suggestions.  Here is a video of the mess I made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E   Doug SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26441|26440|2011-08-13 16:47:34|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Doug How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's a > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being added > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding welds > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > it's coiled shape? > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next attempt, > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26442|26440|2011-08-13 16:54:33|PAUL LIEBENBERG|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|I havent done too much Mig welding, but could you try a piece with a narrower gap btw the plates? Also, I think it really pays to let things cool down between stitch welds as much as you can. If you get too impatient and get too much heat in the plate, you will get more distortion - My experience. ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:37 pm Subject: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. >  It keeps insisting on bending only one direction.   > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps.  I > know that's a lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in > order to get more weld deposited in less time and thus be done > with less heat overall being added to the plate.  I do love the > speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs on 16" centers. > We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong backs > and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly.  Yeah, > upward; the book said it would distort downward.  After that we > start adding welds to both sides but it just keeps distorting > worse in the same direction.  This is cold rolled steel.  Is > it predisposition-ed to distort back into it's coiled shape?  > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this > next attempt, but we'd welcome any suggestions.  > > > Here is a video of the mess I > made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E%c2%a0 > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   > origamiboats@yahoogroups.comTo Unsubscribe, send a blank message > to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 26443|26440|2011-08-13 16:59:31|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Hi Tom I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is left by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's a > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being added > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding welds > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > it's coiled shape? > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next attempt, > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26444|26440|2011-08-13 17:01:32|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Oh, and I'm using a 1/8" gap on the square but joints.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's a > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being added > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding welds > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > it's coiled shape? > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next attempt, > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26445|26440|2011-08-13 17:10:11|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|I'll try a small gap on a scrap piece and the cut it open to check the penetration.  If that is good, I'll try it on a 6ft run.  I was very patient on the first few tries. Even took the temperature of the plate. :)  I'll go back to more cool down breaks.  On the real thing that will be easy to do.  Thanks Paul.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: PAUL LIEBENBERG To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   I havent done too much Mig welding, but could you try a piece with a narrower gap btw the plates? Also, I think it really pays to let things cool down between stitch welds as much as you can. If you get too impatient and get too much heat in the plate, you will get more distortion - My experience. ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:37 pm Subject: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. >  It keeps insisting on bending only one direction.   > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps.  I > know that's a lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in > order to get more weld deposited in less time and thus be done > with less heat overall being added to the plate.  I do love the > speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong backs on 16" centers. > We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong backs > and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly.  Yeah, > upward; the book said it would distort downward.  After that we > start adding welds to both sides but it just keeps distorting > worse in the same direction.  This is cold rolled steel.  Is > it predisposition-ed to distort back into it's coiled shape?  > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this > next attempt, but we'd welcome any suggestions.  > > > Here is a video of the mess I > made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E%c2%a0 > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   > origamiboats@yahoogroups.comTo Unsubscribe, send a blank message > to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26446|26440|2011-08-13 17:15:59|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|doug I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep streight . What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it over and do the same between the front side welds. Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hi Tom > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is left > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's > a > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > added > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > backs > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > welds > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > > it's coiled shape? > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > attempt, > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26447|26440|2011-08-13 18:03:09|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|I'll try the double V again.  A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat?  If so, that makes sense to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other.  And thanks for the feedback.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   doug I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep streight . What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it over and do the same between the front side welds. Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hi Tom > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is left > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's > a > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > added > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > backs > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > welds > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > > it's coiled shape? > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > attempt, > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26448|26440|2011-08-13 18:16:12|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Opps, forgot we can't attach photos here.   See if this works:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1112299274/pic/63134495/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Doug Jackson To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   I'll try the double V again.  A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat?  If so, that makes sense to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other.  And thanks for the feedback.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   doug I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep streight . What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it over and do the same between the front side welds. Tom On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hi Tom > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is left > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know that's > a > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > added > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > backs > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, upward; > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > welds > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back into > > it's coiled shape? > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > attempt, > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26449|26440|2011-08-13 18:52:44|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Doug Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier thicker bars tacked across would help. On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > thanks for the feedback. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > doug > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > streight . > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > over and do the same between the front side welds. > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Hi Tom > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > left > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > that's > > a > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > added > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > backs > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > upward; > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > welds > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > into > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > attempt, > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26450|26450|2011-08-14 12:01:29|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale!|Hi, I will have three 6in. steel tubes (1/8 in. diameter) for sale , already cut into a scraf according to Brent's pattern. 2 are around 20 ft long and one is 15 ft long. I found an aluminium mast already made at a price I couldn't refuse, that is why I am selling my steel tubes. asking $150.00 I can send pictures In the Montreal area, Martin.| 26451|26450|2011-08-14 21:39:05|Matt Malone|Re: 6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale!|I am interested -- Toronto area, and I just made a trailer able to carry 20 foot sections for a similar reason. Going off-line for a week, will check with you when I get back. Good for you if you find another buyer before then. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:01:27 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] 6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale! Hi, I will have three 6in. steel tubes (1/8 in. diameter) for sale , already cut into a scraf according to Brent's pattern. 2 are around 20 ft long and one is 15 ft long. I found an aluminium mast already made at a price I couldn't refuse, that is why I am selling my steel tubes. asking $150.00 I can send pictures In the Montreal area, Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26452|26440|2011-08-14 21:48:27|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld it has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the weld.  I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was not very good.  Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which is a flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open.    Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier thicker bars tacked across would help. On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > thanks for the feedback. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > doug > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > streight . > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > over and do the same between the front side welds. > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Hi Tom > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > left > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > that's > > a > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > added > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > backs > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > upward; > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > welds > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > into > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > attempt, > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26453|26440|2011-08-14 22:15:17|Kim|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Hi Doug ... I couldn't get full-length sheets for my hull, so I had to join 2 sheets to make the hull sides for my boat too. My hull skin is only 3mm plate, so it was much more difficult to avoid distortion. I tried everything you've tried to help prevent distortion; but I couldn't completely avoid it. I was using stick rather than MIG, which maybe didn't help. Fortunately, most of the distortion along the vertical weld joining the sheets vanished as I pulled the curve into the hull side. I assume this will happen to you too. There's still some distortion there (about 1/8" deep) on my boat. I'll have to bog/fill it before applying the final coats of paint; but for my boat the area to be filled will only about a foot wide by the height of the hull side. If that's the only bit that I'll have to fill after finishing a steel boat I'll be a happy guy! :-) Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. > > So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld it has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the weld. > > I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was not very good. Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which is a flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open.  > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com ______________________________________________________________ | 26454|26440|2011-08-14 23:05:21|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Doug I like the dual sheild better than the flux core myself As far as the 1/16" gap in 2 feet not bad but with a little more playing with procedures should be able to get it right on the money. If the seams are horizontle you probably wont see a 1/16 dip but if it is vertical might stand out with a high gloss paint. Tom On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. > > So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water > line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld it > has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the weld. > > I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was > not very good. Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which is a > flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more > narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and > I > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > sense > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > And > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > doug > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > > streight . > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > it > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > > left > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > that's > > > a > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > weld > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > > added > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > > backs > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > strong > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > upward; > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > welds > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > direction. > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > into > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > attempt, > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26455|26440|2011-08-14 23:45:58|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim.   I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole lot less grinding with the .045   I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker.  Specs: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers for strong-backs.  My work surface is not perfectly flat and these seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug I like the dual sheild better than the flux core myself As far as the 1/16" gap in 2 feet not bad but with a little more playing with procedures should be able to get it right on the money. If the seams are horizontle you probably wont see a 1/16 dip but if it is vertical might stand out with a high gloss paint. Tom On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. > > So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water > line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld it > has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the weld. > > I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was > not very good. Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which is a > flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more > narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and > I > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > sense > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > And > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > doug > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > > streight . > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > it > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > > left > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > that's > > > a > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > weld > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > > added > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > > backs > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > strong > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > upward; > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > welds > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > direction. > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > into > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > attempt, > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26456|26440|2011-08-15 01:40:26|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test and show you how. He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way under an hour. And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality achievable is. Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able to do this, near you. Just my opinion. > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26457|26440|2011-08-15 09:31:05|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|I'm actually trying to do just that.  But he has been a no show three times now.  Actually finding a welder is not hard.  What's hard is finding one that is flexible enough to think outside of the box that he works in day in and day out.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test and show you how. He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way under an hour. And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality achievable is. Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able to do this, near you. Just my opinion. > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26458|26440|2011-08-15 09:37:32|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Doug It has been a while sense I used flux core, The only grade I used for vertical down welding was NR-211 but it was declssified to non structual in the 90's. As far as I know none of the dual shield wires are made for vertical down welding. With the dual shield the gas flow rate is quite high 40 to 50 and you still need to keep it out of the wind. I would say for dual shield the 71M is the one to use just keep playin with it till you find the sweet spot Tom On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. That > 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole lot less > grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M at 250 amps and > somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. That's on the low side > of the scale so I was going to try increasing the power and speed and get > the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these seamed to > do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:05 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > I like the dual sheild better than the flux core myself > As far as the 1/16" gap in 2 feet not bad but with a little more playing > with procedures should be able to get it right on the money. If the seams > are horizontle you probably wont see a 1/16 dip but if it is vertical might > stand out with a high gloss paint. > Tom > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. > > > > So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water > > line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld > it > > has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the > weld. > > > > I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was > > not very good. Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which > is a > > flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more > > narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:52 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > and > > I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > > sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > > And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > > it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. > It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > > weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > > strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start > adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > > direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort > back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] | 26459|26450|2011-08-15 10:40:12|martin demers|Re: 6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale!|Ok, I wait for your e-mail. martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:39:03 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] 6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale! > > > > I am interested -- Toronto area, and I just made a trailer able to carry 20 foot sections for a similar reason. Going off-line for a week, will check with you when I get back. Good for you if you find another buyer before then. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:01:27 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] 6in. steel tubes to make mast for sale! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I will have three 6in. steel tubes (1/8 in. diameter) for sale , already cut into a scraf according to Brent's pattern. > > 2 are around 20 ft long and one is 15 ft long. > > I found an aluminium mast already made at a price I couldn't refuse, > > that is why I am selling my steel tubes. > > > > asking $150.00 > > I can send pictures > > In the Montreal area, > > > > 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]| 26460|26440|2011-08-15 11:10:26|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Yes, more gas flow and I just read the specs again and noticed it's DC+ :)  That might make a difference.  Thanks Tom   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug It has been a while sense I used flux core, The only grade I used for vertical down welding was NR-211 but it was declssified to non structual in the 90's. As far as I know none of the dual shield wires are made for vertical down welding. With the dual shield the gas flow rate is quite high 40 to 50 and you still need to keep it out of the wind. I would say for dual shield the 71M is the one to use just keep playin with it till you find the sweet spot Tom On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. That > 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole lot less > grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M at 250 amps and > somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. That's on the low side > of the scale so I was going to try increasing the power and speed and get > the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these seamed to > do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:05 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > I like the dual sheild better than the flux core myself > As far as the 1/16" gap in 2 feet not bad but with a little more playing > with procedures should be able to get it right on the money. If the seams > are horizontle you probably wont see a 1/16 dip but if it is vertical might > stand out with a high gloss paint. > Tom > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Got much better results today. Thanks for the advice. > > > > So how flat is flat enough for a but joint on the hull above the water > > line? When I put a 2 foot flat bar across and perpendicular to the weld > it > > has a 1/16 to 1/8" gap between the bar and the ground surface of the > weld. > > > > I did the double V with 1/16" flat and 0 to 1/8" gap because the cut was > > not very good. Also switched from 1/16" wire to .045 Outershield which > is a > > flux core that also use 100% C02 shielding gas. It defiantly makes a more > > narrow weld but looks good in the samples I cut open. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:52 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > and > > I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > > sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > > And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > > it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. > It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > > weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > > strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start > adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > > direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort > back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] | 26461|26440|2011-08-15 14:49:56|brentswain38|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Do your 45 degree bevel on both sides, and keep flipping them over doing a bit of weld on one side, then a bit on the other. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. �It keeps�insisting on bending only one direction. � > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. �I know that's a lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being added to the plate. �I do love the speed too. We use�3"�flat bar for strong backs on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. �Yeah, upward; the book said it would distort downward. �After that we start adding welds to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. �This is cold rolled steel. �Is it�predisposition-ed�to distort back into it's coiled shape?� > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next attempt, but we'd welcome any suggestions.� > > > Here is a video of the mess I made:�http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > � > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26462|26462|2011-08-16 00:09:17|Noel Freshwater|looking for building space|i am newly retired and looking for a space to build a BRENT SWAIN 31 IN SYDNEY AUSTRALIA or somwhere with in 100k area also would like to link up with any other BRENT SWAIN BUILDERS in AUSTRALIA i have 35yrs welder fab skills willing to help other builders| 26463|26462|2011-08-16 05:22:44|Kim|Re: looking for building space|Hi Noel ... I'm building a Swain 26 in Brisbane: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht Shane Duncan has just finished building a Swain 31 in Perth, which I think had its first sail a couple of months ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/24328 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/26015 As far as I'm aware we are the only current builders in Australia at the moment. Send me an email if you're likely to be coming up this way. Best of luck with your project! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Freshwater" wrote: > > i am newly retired and looking for a space to build a BRENT SWAIN 31 IN SYDNEY AUSTRALIA or somwhere with in 100k area also would like to link up with any other BRENT SWAIN BUILDERS in AUSTRALIA i have 35yrs welder fab skills willing to help other builders | 26464|26462|2011-08-16 07:07:25|bendeac2000|Re: looking for building space|Hi Noel, There's a yard in Kernell that rents hardstand space- or at least did up till about 2 years ago. I spoke to a bloke called Russel who ran the place. I think his number is 0419 216 887. It used to be about $350 a month so some motivation to finish the hull quickly! Other than that, there's a bloke who was finishing off an Adams 40 at the old FC Nichols Abattoir site on Woy Woy road Woy Woy. He occasionally posts on the metalboatbuilding.org site under the name Adams Family. I think his name is John. Best of luck! ben| 26465|26462|2011-08-16 13:19:03|Gord Schnell|Re: looking for building space|What geographic area do you prefer? Gord On 2011-08-16, at 4:07 AM, bendeac2000 wrote: > > > Hi Noel, > > There's a yard in Kernell that rents hardstand space- or at least did up till about 2 years ago. I spoke to a bloke called Russel who ran the place. I think his number is 0419 216 887. It used to be about $350 a month so some motivation to finish the hull quickly! Other than that, there's a bloke who was finishing off an Adams 40 at the old FC Nichols Abattoir site on Woy Woy road Woy Woy. He occasionally posts on the metalboatbuilding.org site under the name Adams Family. I think his name is John. > > Best of luck! > > ben > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26466|26462|2011-08-16 13:33:41|Gord Schnell|Re: looking for building space|Sorry Noel....I asked were you wanted to build...reading my mail from "newest" to "oldest". Please disregard. Gord PS: My daughter and family live on the South Island, On 2011-08-15, at 8:10 PM, Noel Freshwater wrote: > i am newly retired and looking for a space to build a BRENT SWAIN 31 IN SYDNEY AUSTRALIA or somwhere with in 100k area also would like to link up with any other BRENT SWAIN BUILDERS in AUSTRALIA i have 35yrs welder fab skills willing to help other builders > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26467|26440|2011-08-16 14:07:24|brentswain38|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|A friend once hired a couple of pulp mill welders , used to welding heavy plate. They welded his decks as if they were welding heavy plate, and warped the shit out of it. If you suggested anything to them, they got defensive . I suggested the owner fire them before they got to the decks, and that they not be let anywhere near the deck welding. He didn't, and ended up with badly warped decks. I find welding students much more open to suggestions, and cheaper. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > I'm actually trying to do just that.  But he has been a no show three times now.  Actually finding a welder is not hard.  What's hard is finding one that is flexible enough to think outside of the box that he works in day in and day out.    >   > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > >   > This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... > > Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. > This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or > learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful > to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. > > I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test > and show you how. > He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way > under an hour. > And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what > you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality > achievable is. > > Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able > to do this, near you. > Just my opinion. > > > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > > > Specs: > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26468|26468|2011-08-20 16:17:12|Noel Freshwater|(no subject)|recently retired looking for yard to build bs31 in N.S.W. AUSTRALIA have just joined group hopeing to link up with other BRUCE SWAIN builders in AUSRALIA| 26469|26469|2011-08-21 08:37:20|Kim|How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Brent and all ... I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? Thanks! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 26470|26440|2011-08-21 09:19:47|James Pronk|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder?|I have been teaching welding for 3 years and I have a list of guys that would be willing to go and work on a project for a couple of weeks or a month. You might need to feed and lodge them or give them a place to camp and there rate would be good. James --- On Mon, 8/15/11, Doug Jackson wrote: From: Doug Jackson Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Received: Monday, August 15, 2011, 9:30 AM   I'm actually trying to do just that.  But he has been a no show three times now.  Actually finding a welder is not hard.  What's hard is finding one that is flexible enough to think outside of the box that he works in day in and day out.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test and show you how. He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way under an hour. And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality achievable is. Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able to do this, near you. Just my opinion. > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26471|26440|2011-08-21 09:39:07|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder?|Thanks James. We're getting results we're happy with, but we're planning to bring in welding help just because there is so much of it to do.  Where do you teach?   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder?   I have been teaching welding for 3 years and I have a list of guys that would be willing to go and work on a project for a couple of weeks or a month. You might need to feed and lodge them or give them a place to camp and there rate would be good. James --- On Mon, 8/15/11, Doug Jackson wrote: From: Doug Jackson Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Received: Monday, August 15, 2011, 9:30 AM   I'm actually trying to do just that.  But he has been a no show three times now.  Actually finding a welder is not hard.  What's hard is finding one that is flexible enough to think outside of the box that he works in day in and day out.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test and show you how. He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way under an hour. And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality achievable is. Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able to do this, near you. Just my opinion. > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26472|26440|2011-08-21 10:08:58|James Pronk|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder?|I'm in Peterborough Ontario, Canada. I would also contact a welding instructor at a tech College near you. I would love to take my class on tours to see projects that people are working on. It would get them thinking outside the box Talking to the person, see what they having problems  with and see what my students come up with for solutions.  It is also a good way to find a welder that would be a good fit for you. James --- On Sun, 8/21/11, Doug Jackson wrote: From: Doug Jackson Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder? To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Received: Sunday, August 21, 2011, 9:39 AM   Thanks James. We're getting results we're happy with, but we're planning to bring in welding help just because there is so much of it to do.  Where do you teach?   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion,Looking for a welder?   I have been teaching welding for 3 years and I have a list of guys that would be willing to go and work on a project for a couple of weeks or a month. You might need to feed and lodge them or give them a place to camp and there rate would be good. James --- On Mon, 8/15/11, Doug Jackson wrote: From: Doug Jackson Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Received: Monday, August 15, 2011, 9:30 AM   I'm actually trying to do just that.  But he has been a no show three times now.  Actually finding a welder is not hard.  What's hard is finding one that is flexible enough to think outside of the box that he works in day in and day out.      Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   This is not meant to be a heretical post, but ... Most of what I do is practical and pragmatic. This means that for big and expensive, it´s often better to build or learn yourself, and for small stuff it´s much easier, faster and useful to rely on others know-how or mass-produced stuff. I would hire an local welder for an hour, using your equipment, to test and show you how. He would probably dial the process in, and show you how, for 50$, in way under an hour. And using your equipment, this would be very close to optimal on what you have, and you would have a good idea of what the possible quality achievable is. Any of the free (craigslist) lists would probably produce a welder able to do this, near you. Just my opinion. > Thanks for the feedback Tom and Kim. > > I've got to spend some time getting the weld less porous and flatter. > That 1/16" wire was actually a lot easier, but there will be a whole > lot less grinding with the .045 I am using Lincoln Outershield 71M > at 250 amps and somewhere around 300 ipm with the .045 outershield. > That's on the low side of the scale so I was going to try increasing > the power and speed and get the deposit in place quicker. > > Specs: > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Gas-Shielded-Outershield-Outershield71M/c3101.pdf > > What wire are you running and what settings do you use for flat down? > > Oh, and I used 2' lengths of 2x2x1/4" angle on 16" centers > for strong-backs. My work surface is not perfectly flat and these > seamed to do the job of getting the sheets in alignment. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26473|26440|2011-08-21 10:58:04|James Pronk|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Hey Doug Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and without the bevel? You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. James --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: From: Tom Mann Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM   Doug Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier thicker bars tacked across would help. On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > thanks for the feedback. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > doug > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > streight . > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > over and do the same between the front side welds. > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Hi Tom > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > left > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > that's > > a > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > added > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > backs > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > upward; > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > welds > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > into > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > attempt, > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26474|26440|2011-08-21 12:25:14|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and 1/8".  That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding school.    Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Hey Doug Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and without the bevel? You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. James --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: From: Tom Mann Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM   Doug Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier thicker bars tacked across would help. On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > thanks for the feedback. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > doug > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > streight . > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > over and do the same between the front side welds. > Tom > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Hi Tom > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > left > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > Doug > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > that's > > a > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > added > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > backs > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > upward; > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > welds > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > into > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > attempt, > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26475|26469|2011-08-23 14:27:34|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. In other areas, electric could be a practical option. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > Thanks! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 26476|26469|2011-08-23 14:33:42|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Using the tank top as structural, lets you make the floor much wider, a consideration in such a small boat, where space is at a premium. Angles run right thru to the centreline does reduce the floor size. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. > Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. > An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. > In other areas, electric could be a practical option. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > | 26477|26477|2011-08-23 17:49:30|M.J. Malone|Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|I never imagined there would be such extended calms anywhere at the margin of a large continent and large ocean. Mixed with overcast it really puts a crimp in both wind generators and solar panels. I wonder if there would be effective no-go zones for the electric cruiser on a schedule. Would it be more accurate to say the wind is low but workable for one with patience? The limitation is probably current speed and traffic in straits. I am toying with the idea of woodgas. Firewood does not store as compactly as a liquid fuel, nor is the energy density very high at the prop, but neither is it for batteries. Its advantage is, it is much lower tech and it is a fuel so it is much easier and less incremental expense to make the range far superior to batteries. At least firewood will not short or leak explosive vapours -- the fuelgas is generated as it is used. Also, if one has an extended calm, gathering and splitting firewood is a useful pursuit. Matt brentswain38 wrote: Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. In other areas, electric could be a practical option. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > Thanks! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26478|26469|2011-08-24 03:09:06|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Brent ... Many thanks for your responses. As you have suggested, I'll increase the size of the transverse angle (original: 75x75x6) that will run from chine to centreline over the keels (3 per side). However, I can't get 1/2" thick 3" angle. The biggest in 3" angle is 75x75x10. The next sizes up that I can get are 90x90x6, 90x90x8, 90x90x10, 100x75x6, 100x75x8, 100x75x10, 100x100x6, 100x100x8, 100x100x10, 100x100x12. As their dimensions go up they start to get very heavy! Although I suppose I'm saving a bit of weight in not having the tank tops. Out of the above, could you recommend a size to use for these transverse lengths of angle? Running 3 horizontal lengths of angle, across the hull, and welded to the above 3 transverse angles, is an excellent idea. Indeed, I could position these at the wheelhouse sole height and just drop the sole on to them. What size angle would you recommend I use for these horizontal lengths? Finally, if I do all the above, do you think that my twin keel installation would be as strong and sturdy as it would have been if I had all the tanks installed? Thanks Brent. I'm pretty keen to convert the space occupied by the fuel tanks into a battery storage area; but of course I don't want to compromise the structural integrity of the boat in doing so. Cheers ... Kim. PS: I think going electric will be (just) viable for me. It's worth a try. It's sunny most of the time along the east coast of Australia (for the solar panels), and there's almost always enough wind to keep a sailboat moving through the water most of the time. I suspect the secret of success for an electric powered boat is to be completely happy with, at times, very low speeds. ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Using the tank top as structural, lets you make the floor much wider, a consideration in such a small boat, where space is at a premium. Angles run right thru to the centreline does reduce the floor size. > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. > Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. > An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. > In other areas, electric could be a practical option. > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > Thanks! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ | 26479|26469|2011-08-24 07:42:40|scott|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|What about going to a T cross section? You gain a fair amount of strength with a T over an angle. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Using the tank top as structural, lets you make the floor much wider, a consideration in such a small boat, where space is at a premium. Angles run right thru to the centreline does reduce the floor size. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. | 26480|26477|2011-08-24 10:28:51|Bruno Ogorelec|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|You'll need a BIG boat. Gas generators are bulky. Wood is bulky. Would is heavy and you're going into retirement, right? It usually takes ages for the generator to stqart producing gas. When you stop, a lot of gas is wasted before the generator cools down to a stop, The generating area must be thoroughly and permanently ventilated, as much of the gas is the very poisonous carbon monoxide. Do you really want to have that on your boat? What do you do with the tar residue? You cannot just dump it. It has top go for a treatment somewhere. As far as I know there are no engines ready made to burn the gas and you'd have to adapt one. The power out put is so poor that you'll need a fairly big engine to compensate. That means it will burn a lot of wood. You'll need a troop of people collecting firewood to be able to run. The whole thing will be very expensive and so impractical that you'll despair within a month. Bruno Ogorelec On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM, M.J. Malone wrote: > ** > > > I never imagined there would be such extended calms anywhere at the margin > of a large continent and large ocean. Mixed with overcast it really puts a > crimp in both wind generators and solar panels. I wonder if there would be > effective no-go zones for the electric cruiser on a schedule. > > Would it be more accurate to say the wind is low but workable for one with > patience? The limitation is probably current speed and traffic in straits. > > I am toying with the idea of woodgas. Firewood does not store as compactly > as a liquid fuel, nor is the energy density very high at the prop, but > neither is it for batteries. Its advantage is, it is much lower tech and it > is a fuel so it is much easier and less incremental expense to make the > range far superior to batteries. At least firewood will not short or leak > explosive vapours -- the fuelgas is generated as it is used. Also, if one > has an extended calm, gathering and splitting firewood is a useful pursuit. > > Matt > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26481|26477|2011-08-24 13:29:09|Matt Malone|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|Good comments: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: bruno.ogorelec@... >Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:03:16 +0200 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable? > >You'll need a BIG boat. Gas generators are bulky. Working outward from the center, one needs a 4"-6" combustion tube in the middle where the magic happens, converting biomass intocombustible gases. With insulation around that, and some airflow patterns to recover heat, yes, it cannot be much smaller than a laundry basket. For convenience, a gas generator is often made larger because the wood in it is the read-to use fuel tank. A smaller generator would have to be fed more often. So more the size of a trash can. So, of all things in a fuel engine boat, it would be bulky, but only in comparison to those things commonly found on a modern boat. Compared to a steam engine boat, (with its bulky boiler) or an electric boat with a good range and long-lived nickel-iron batteries with a large reserve water capacity (nickel-iron batteries use water) I think a woodgas generator is not that bulky. It is worth considering. >Wood is bulky. Would is >heavy and you're going into retirement, right? True. Wood is safe to store most anywhere in the boat though. Woodand retirement, I will address below... >It usually takes ages for the generator to stqart producing gas. Based on my reading of good designs, not true. Startup in less than 10 minutes is expected. Some designs claim a couple of minutes, even 30 seconds. Yes yes a lot of bad things can happen in a couple of minutes.... electric is instant-on, a fuel engine starts producing thrust in seconds. Time is relative, the boat operator has to think ahead and prepare according to the abilities oftheir equipment. >When you stop, a lot of gas is wasted before the generator cools >down to a stop, Well, depends. Yes, all gas generators continue producing gas for a time after they are shut off. If the design is poor and leaky(letting air in after "shutdown") or has a lot of thermal capacity in the combustion zone, then, yes, a larger volume of carbon monoxide is produced before the generator stops. Back when peoplewere using woodgas generators more, their designs were not wellsealed, because of the materials they were cobbled together out of, and they did not need to be too well sealed, mounted on the outside of a vehicle -- which made for a bad combination with attached garages -- see carbon monoxide below. So seal it well, like it is a gasoline tank so it cannot get air to keep running, and reduce the thermal capacity in the hotzone so the reactions use up the remaining heat quickly after shutdown. The char in the hot zone has little thermal capacity in itself, that is why people can walk on hot coals. The thermal capacity in the hot zone of a gas generator has a lot more to do with the materials the hot zone is made from. The new refractory/insulating cements that are available to hobbyists to build kilns are outstanding for containing heat to a small zone, and thereby reducing the total heat in the generator, therefore considerably shortening the shutdown period. >The generating area must be thoroughly and permanently ventilated, >as much of the gas is the very poisonous carbon monoxide. Do you >really want to have that on your boat? Absolutely carbon monoxide is a hazard. Gas generators were quite popular at one time, and fell out of favour to liquid fuel vehicles for civilian use owing to carbon monoxide poisoning. Back then, gasgenerators were made from garbage cans and surplus containers. That was before the average person had the capability to arc weld and create gas generators that are 100% gas-tight -- verified by putting them under pressure or vacuum on a regular basis and seeing that the pressure holds. (Attach a bicycle tire valve and a low-pressure gauge to your generator, and pump your generator up to a few PSI every once in a while to make sure the pressure holds overnight. Usecommercially available plumbing shutoffs.) Yes, the generator would require a shut-down vent pipe. At shutdown,the air intake and gas output pipe would have to be sealed -- ball valves ? -- and the vent pipe opened, exiting away from any air intakes to the cabin, or better yet, where excess gas might becombusted. I might be tempted to duct it to the burn head for a propane lantern, and combust it there. When the lantern goes outthere would be just a whiff of carbon monoxide left to come -- the generator would be essentially completely shut down. Where to put the gas generator is a good question. I would build it "outside" the hull, either in a separate compartment, orbuilt into an area near the cockpit, like a seat. Then the fuel loading hatch would be handy to the cockpit. This hatch, which might have been loose-fitting in a farm tractor or 1930's car application would have to be absolutely sealed in a marine application, to keep carbon monoxide in, and water out. >What do you do with the tar residue? You cannot just dump it. >It has top go for a treatment somewhere. This is a process question, solved in different ways in different designsof generators. First the tar is not a necessary, accumulating byproduct needing dumping. It is incompletely burned fuel. One can dispose of any combustible (not flammable, not gasoline) material by putting it into the fuel intake on top of a full load of wood. One might have to make a special drip-cup for such things as cooking oil and grease from food, so that cups of it do not dump into the hot zone all at once. But in the limit, anything organic and dry can get dumped into the fuel intake. The small residue of tar that might be produced by the generator is no different. Some designs cool the generated gas and then filter it through wood chips to absorb tar and particulates, to clean the gas before it goes to the engine. After a while, these tar-stained chips are then fed back into the system as fuel and new chips are put in the filter. This seems the simplest solution to tar. If one were very concerned about tar, it seems to me that readily available catalytic materials, like the catalytic blocks from low-smog woodstoves, and the materials in catalytic converters in cars, could be incorporated into the hot zone of the generator to cut down on tars in the first place. However, none of these catalytic materials are as active or aggressive atconverting long-chain carbons into fuel than glowing char --it is the entire principle on which the gas generator works. Having a large, active hot char zone in the generator would tend to naturally process the tars into fuel-gas anyway leaving very little to condense and reprocess. >As far as I know there are no engines ready made to burn the gas >and you'd have to adapt one. The power out put is so poor that you'll >need a fairly big engine to compensate. Also true. This would seem the largest problem. Low-performace long-life iron engines, like those in tractors, and old vehicles made to burn regular gasoline seem best for conversion. These lower-tech engines have a poor power-to-weight, and running on wood gas, the power is reduced even more. So, brace yourself for an older, larger engine, that runs on a fuel that might often be free. Call it added stability and ballast. I think power to weight is a smaller concern on a boat than on a passenger vehicle. We are spoiled by the relatively high power to weight of mid-performance fuel engines in common use, and going to anythingrenewable is going to be a big step down in some respect, it is inevitable.If range were one's greatest concern, one could easily double the fueltank in a fuel-engine boat, and have a range 10 times greater, and at greater power than electric. If power were the greatest concern, I couldeasily drop a 350 cubic inch V-8 engine into most boats without really reducing cabin space -- Yes, the big hump in the cabin floor would be inconvenient, but in no case would anyone have to sleep with their kneesup to their chest for lack of cabin space. If endurance were the most important aspect, say to hold a boat off a lee shore for the duration of a storm, I could drop in an efficient diesel of about 2/3 the normal size, and increase fuel tank size. We are spoiled. >That means it will burn a lot of wood. You'll need a troop of people >collecting firewood to be able to run. One would use wood in proportion to the need to run the engine. Wood isnot that bad an energy source, 15-30 MJ/kg, as compared to gasoline at 43 MJ/kg so lets not exaggerate. $50 of gasoline is about equal in energy to 55 pounds of wood. That is two large trunk-rounds, maybe 3. The BC beaches I remember had thousands of times more wood than that piledin every kilometer. Twenty minutes with a good sharp Swede-saw and 15 minutes with the splitting axe. I could not care less if in the end my engine performed like I gave it only $25 in gas. Some people approach cutting and splitting firewood in a recreational way, enjoying the activity almost as much as sailing. Make it your morning calisthenics and enjoy it. Even more people would enjoy it when they realize they are putting by the equivalent of dozens or even $100 of fuel in every dingy-load of firewood they load into their cruising boat. >The whole thing will be very expensive and so impractical that you'll >despair within a month. Expense: As the generator is welded sheet or plate steel, for someone making an orgami already, it does not seem an extreme expense. A suitableengine might take longer to find but is likely to only be cheaper than a newengine. Impractical: Well, it depends. If one were trying to power an large engine-only boat on wood, yes, it could easily get tiresome. But I am the type of sailor that, two seasons in a row, used only 15 liters of fuel the entire season sailing every weekend in a 2-ton boat. I like to sail, not motor. But I also like that I can carry extra fuel, even a lot of extra fuel, in the case that I want to run the engine more for some reason. And I enjoy cutting some firewood. Cutting firewood has kept many older Canadians young well into their retirement. Compared to heating a home, in Canada, in the winter, a woodgas system running the engine of a sailboat in a warmer climate, would be a very small amount of wood cutting. >Bruno Ogorelec Matt On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM, M.J. Malone wrote: > ** > > > I never imagined there would be such extended calms anywhere at the margin > of a large continent and large ocean. Mixed with overcast it really puts a > crimp in both wind generators and solar panels. I wonder if there would be > effective no-go zones for the electric cruiser on a schedule. > > Would it be more accurate to say the wind is low but workable for one with > patience? The limitation is probably current speed and traffic in straits. > > I am toying with the idea of woodgas. Firewood does not store as compactly > as a liquid fuel, nor is the energy density very high at the prop, but > neither is it for batteries. Its advantage is, it is much lower tech and it > is a fuel so it is much easier and less incremental expense to make the > range far superior to batteries. At least firewood will not short or leak > explosive vapours -- the fuelgas is generated as it is used. Also, if one > has an extended calm, gathering and splitting firewood is a useful pursuit. > > Matt > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26482|26469|2011-08-24 13:34:34|Tom Mann|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Kim electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. Tom On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Brent and all ... > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel > Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup > cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. > Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to > generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have > to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial > necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to > afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. > Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would > be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and > water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. > Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel > tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank > ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, > the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would > weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole > (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't > need any tank tops welded in place. > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle > (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top > of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the > tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on > and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think > that was how you used to originally build them? > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops > are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your > book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull > side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank > tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? > Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I > increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > Thanks! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26483|26477|2011-08-24 14:18:01|Bruno Ogorelec|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|Matt, You have obviously given the wood gas power a lot of thought. I like the idea. A long time ago I toyed with the thought of converting a wartime Dodge military truck. Would have been fun. Alas, real life intervened. I've never heard of a wood gas boat and would love to see it happen. Best of luck if you decide to go that way. Bruno [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26484|26477|2011-08-24 15:06:04|James Pronk|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|This would be interesting if you can understand it http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGw Lots of info on wood gas online. I love the trash powered honda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JyazgRBtq8&feature=related James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26485|26344|2011-08-24 21:29:30|Mark Hamill|Re: Window sealant|FYI--I installed a roof vent the other day and the stuff they gave me looks like it might be good for window sealant. It comes in a wide variety of colors but the stuff i used is clear. It is meant for sealing surfaces that have a lot of movement claiming a 1400% stretchability. Mulco Supra Expert http://www.allglassparts.com/product/405135/400291 Information 1-800-463-7426 It says Exterior so I am not sure whether that means no interior use and would that mean use on portlights etc. with some interior exposure. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26486|26469|2011-08-25 07:56:02|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Tom ... Yes, electric propulsion probably has more con's than pro's at the moment. I was going to use AGM batteries, and they are indeed heavy. But they will easily fit under my wheelhouse sole where the fuel tanks would otherwise be, so their weight is down low. I'll save some weight by not carrying fuel, and not having a diesel engine. The solar panels I was going to mount on an aluminum frame over the cockpit. Despite the disadvantages, I'd like to give it a try. It might work out to be OK for me. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Kim > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > Tom | 26487|26477|2011-08-25 07:58:27|Nic Nac|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|My grand father has had an little truck with an wood gas generator after ww2. He had to fire it on an houre before useing. This is nothing for a dangerous situations. But it's possible to start with gasoline an switch to wood gas when ready. 2011/8/25 Nic Nac > If You like to use wood as fuel, whats about a stirling engine? > Stilrlings are undestructable low tech just what we need and not so big, > dangerous and work intensive like steam engines > > You cane use it directly or more comforable for loading the batteries and > drive eletrical. > I read somewhere that some swedish submarines run withe strilings. > > > > 2011/8/24 James Pronk > >> This would be interesting if you can understand it >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGw >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lots of info on wood gas online. I love the trash powered honda >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JyazgRBtq8&feature=related >> James >> [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]| 26488|26477|2011-08-25 07:59:56|Nic Nac|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|If You like to use wood as fuel, whats about a stirling engine? Stilrlings are undestructable low tech just what we need and not so big, dangerous and work intensive like steam engines You cane use it directly or more comforable for loading the batteries and drive eletrical. I read somewhere that some swedish submarines run withe strilings. 2011/8/24 James Pronk > This would be interesting if you can understand it > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGw > > > > > > > Lots of info on wood gas online. I love the trash powered honda > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JyazgRBtq8&feature=related > James > [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]| 26489|26344|2011-08-25 08:01:50|Matt Malone|Re: Window sealant|The PDF on the mulco.ca website says that it is dissolved by mineral spirits. They say it is for things meeting perpendicular, not sure how it would do on boat windows that are normally potted in some way. 7.5 kN/m peel strength -- so is that 750 N force to peel a 1 cm wide bead ? About 75kg ? Sika Flex 11 says 160 psi, which is less. It also says it is for industrial customers only. On the bright side, it does not contain silicone. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mhamill1@... Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:29:35 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Window sealant FYI--I installed a roof vent the other day and the stuff they gave me looks like it might be good for window sealant. It comes in a wide variety of colors but the stuff i used is clear. It is meant for sealing surfaces that have a lot of movement claiming a 1400% stretchability. Mulco Supra Expert http://www.allglassparts.com/product/405135/400291 Information 1-800-463-7426 It says Exterior so I am not sure whether that means no interior use and would that mean use on portlights etc. with some interior exposure. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26490|26469|2011-08-25 09:50:23|Tom Mann|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hello Kim Not sure if you seen these tracker mounts for solar panels, They work pretty good and you get a lot more power throughout the day VS flat. At the bottom of page there are basic drawings to build. http://www.atomvoyages.com/projects/solartracker.htm I built one, time consuming but worth it. I am in the proccess of building a aluminum radar arch to fit a glass 26', should be interesting to see how it works out, all up weight of basic arch is about 30 lbs, one thing about it, it will be the first trailer sailer around here with roll bars Tom On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Tom ... > > Yes, electric propulsion probably has more con's than pro's at the moment. > I was going to use AGM batteries, and they are indeed heavy. But they will > easily fit under my wheelhouse sole where the fuel tanks would otherwise be, > so their weight is down low. I'll save some weight by not carrying fuel, and > not having a diesel engine. The solar panels I was going to mount on an > aluminum frame over the cockpit. > > Despite the disadvantages, I'd like to give it a try. It might work out to > be OK for me. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > Kim > > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller > boat > > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to > the > > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > > Tom > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26491|26469|2011-08-25 10:05:03|Doug Jackson|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|AGM's are great batteries, but I have killed 4 of the now.  They don't survive deep discharge like lead acid's will. They also don't take over or quick charging well. And they are an expensive battery to replace.  Just something to think about.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Kim To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:55 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?   Hi Tom ... Yes, electric propulsion probably has more con's than pro's at the moment. I was going to use AGM batteries, and they are indeed heavy. But they will easily fit under my wheelhouse sole where the fuel tanks would otherwise be, so their weight is down low. I'll save some weight by not carrying fuel, and not having a diesel engine. The solar panels I was going to mount on an aluminum frame over the cockpit. Despite the disadvantages, I'd like to give it a try. It might work out to be OK for me. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Kim > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > Tom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26492|26477|2011-08-26 14:37:25|brentswain38|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|One client was talking about a steam engine which was readily available, 22 hp, the size of a 22 hp diesel. When I asked my father , a lifetime steam engineer, about it, he said" A boiler explosion is extremely easy to do. " When I big summer high parks itself over BC, a glassy calm for weeks on end are common. In winter, with solid overcast, such extended calms are also not uncommon in BC. Such calms are so calm, they are unworkable. I sailed my last boat, without any engine, for three years here, and a trip top Tahiti and back, so I remember well how calm it can get, and stay here. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "M.J. Malone" wrote: > > I never imagined there would be such extended calms anywhere at the margin of a large continent and large ocean. Mixed with overcast it really puts a crimp in both wind generators and solar panels. I wonder if there would be effective no-go zones for the electric cruiser on a schedule. > > Would it be more accurate to say the wind is low but workable for one with patience? The limitation is probably current speed and traffic in straits. > > I am toying with the idea of woodgas. Firewood does not store as compactly as a liquid fuel, nor is the energy density very high at the prop, but neither is it for batteries. Its advantage is, it is much lower tech and it is a fuel so it is much easier and less incremental expense to make the range far superior to batteries. At least firewood will not short or leak explosive vapours -- the fuelgas is generated as it is used. Also, if one has an extended calm, gathering and splitting firewood is a useful pursuit. > > Matt > > brentswain38 wrote: > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. > Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. > An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. > In other areas, electric could be a practical option. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26493|26469|2011-08-26 14:40:16|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Thanks for the link, Tom. Very interesting. It says that "using a Solar-Tracker type design means you can increase your panel's output by at least 30%." That's a huge increase in efficiency! Obviously well worth the effort. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Hello Kim > Not sure if you seen these tracker mounts for solar panels, They work > pretty good and you get a lot more power throughout the day VS flat. At the > bottom of page there are basic drawings to build. > > http://www.atomvoyages.com/projects/solartracker.htm > I built one, time consuming but worth it. I am in the proccess of building > a aluminum radar arch to fit a glass 26', should be interesting to see how > it works out, all up weight of basic arch is about 30 lbs, one thing about > it, it will be the first trailer sailer around here with roll bars > Tom | 26494|26469|2011-08-26 14:41:32|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|75x75x10 would work, and would probably be as strong as with the tank, especially if you made the aft one with a web between the horizontal one and the long ones. The aft one takes the most impact if you hit anything. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > Many thanks for your responses. > > As you have suggested, I'll increase the size of the transverse angle (original: 75x75x6) that will run from chine to centreline over the keels (3 per side). However, I can't get 1/2" thick 3" angle. The biggest in 3" angle is 75x75x10. > > The next sizes up that I can get are 90x90x6, 90x90x8, 90x90x10, 100x75x6, 100x75x8, 100x75x10, 100x100x6, 100x100x8, 100x100x10, 100x100x12. As their dimensions go up they start to get very heavy! Although I suppose I'm saving a bit of weight in not having the tank tops. > > Out of the above, could you recommend a size to use for these transverse lengths of angle? > > Running 3 horizontal lengths of angle, across the hull, and welded to the above 3 transverse angles, is an excellent idea. Indeed, I could position these at the wheelhouse sole height and just drop the sole on to them. > > What size angle would you recommend I use for these horizontal lengths? > > Finally, if I do all the above, do you think that my twin keel installation would be as strong and sturdy as it would have been if I had all the tanks installed? > > Thanks Brent. > > I'm pretty keen to convert the space occupied by the fuel tanks into a battery storage area; but of course I don't want to compromise the structural integrity of the boat in doing so. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I think going electric will be (just) viable for me. It's worth a try. It's sunny most of the time along the east coast of Australia (for the solar panels), and there's almost always enough wind to keep a sailboat moving through the water most of the time. I suspect the secret of success for an electric powered boat is to be completely happy with, at times, very low speeds. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Using the tank top as structural, lets you make the floor much wider, a consideration in such a small boat, where space is at a premium. Angles run right thru to the centreline does reduce the floor size. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. > > Electric can be a good option , in areas where the wind is reliable.I don't know how reliable it is in your area, but in BC it is extremely unreliable, where month long calms, combined with solid overcast, are common. > > An Alaska bound cruiser once anchored behind me. He had an electric motor, and a wind generator on his mast. He said with a full charge , in a flat calm , he could motor 20 miles in a flat calm. With any wind assist on sails and on the wind generator, he could extend that range considerably. Here in windless BC, 20 miles is not enough to get one out of the Strait of Juan De Fuca, sometimes for windless weeks on end, causing one to miss the season for heading south. > > In other areas, electric could be a practical option. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > | 26495|26469|2011-08-26 14:44:29|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Yes T sections would be excellent. I wish they were more readily available. I'd prefer them over angles, for almost everything, including longitudinals. Unfortunately,they are hard to find. For short pieces you can make your own. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > What about going to a T cross section? You gain a fair amount of strength with a T over an angle. > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Using the tank top as structural, lets you make the floor much wider, a consideration in such a small boat, where space is at a premium. Angles run right thru to the centreline does reduce the floor size. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Running angles across the hull, from web to web, to act as floors, just under the floor boards, will put back some of this strength. As the weight is low down, drastically increasing the size of the angles ,especially the aft ones, to half inch, wouldn't hurt anything. > | 26496|26469|2011-08-26 14:52:16|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Outboards are quick and simple solutions. If you have problems, you can easily take the whole package to the mechanic. They are very prone to corrosion, and have a much shorter life than a diesel. My first boat had an outboard in a well. When I got to New Zealand, I couldn't wait to get a diesel installed. Outboards have improved drastically since then, with sealed electronic ignition a huge improvement. However, while in the building stage, if you plan to use an outboard, you should still install a stern tube, exhaust port, and engine mounts, to leave the option of an inboard engine, easily made in the future. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Kim > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > Tom > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kim wrote: > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel > > Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup > > cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. > > Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to > > generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have > > to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial > > necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to > > afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. > > Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would > > be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and > > water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. > > Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel > > tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank > > ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, > > the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would > > weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole > > (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't > > need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle > > (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top > > of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the > > tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on > > and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think > > that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops > > are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your > > book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull > > side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank > > tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? > > Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I > > increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26497|26477|2011-08-26 14:56:27|brentswain38|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|Some French subs use Stirlings, invented by a preacher in the early 1800's. They can stay down for weeks on end. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Nic Nac wrote: > > If You like to use wood as fuel, whats about a stirling engine? > Stilrlings are undestructable low tech just what we need and not so big, > dangerous and work intensive like steam engines > > You cane use it directly or more comforable for loading the batteries and > drive eletrical. > I read somewhere that some swedish submarines run withe strilings. > > > 2011/8/24 James Pronk > > > This would be interesting if you can understand it > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lots of info on wood gas online. I love the trash powered honda > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JyazgRBtq8&feature=related > > James > > [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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26498|26469|2011-08-26 16:29:09|brentswain38|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|One of the main problems with outboards is their tendency to kick the prop out of the water in any swell. Keeping it on the centreline reduces this problem, but if you put it too deep, the back pressure makes it hard to start. If it is shallow enough to make starting easy, then it's shallow enough to kick out in a swell. Only inboard diesels and electric motors can completely eliminate this problem. In an outboard well, they tend to choke on their own exhaust. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Outboards are quick and simple solutions. If you have problems, you can easily take the whole package to the mechanic. They are very prone to corrosion, and have a much shorter life than a diesel. > My first boat had an outboard in a well. When I got to New Zealand, I couldn't wait to get a diesel installed. Outboards have improved drastically since then, with sealed electronic ignition a huge improvement. However, while in the building stage, if you plan to use an outboard, you should still install a stern tube, exhaust port, and engine mounts, to leave the option of an inboard engine, easily made in the future. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > Kim > > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat > > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the > > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > > Tom > > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel > > > Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup > > > cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. > > > Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to > > > generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have > > > to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial > > > necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to > > > afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. > > > Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would > > > be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and > > > water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. > > > Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel > > > tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank > > > ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, > > > the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would > > > weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole > > > (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't > > > need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle > > > (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top > > > of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the > > > tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on > > > and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think > > > that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops > > > are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your > > > book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull > > > side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank > > > tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? > > > Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I > > > increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26499|26477|2011-08-26 17:31:40|Matt Malone|Re: Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable?|Yes, I have considered a very small engine, maybe a lawnmower engine, and a small woodgas generator to run it, to recharge batteries. Even at 1000 Watts, that is 60 Amps at charging voltage, more than enough to top off a large battery bank in good time. The battery bank however would still have to be sizeable, so that one could run for an extended period without leaving the helm to start the woodgas generator. A sizeable battery bank is the expense I was hoping to avoid. I have forgotten the exact term, but in renewable energy circles they talk of self-sufficient residences or properties, by designing their systems like one would a cruising boat. I have considered a small woodgas charging system running continuously at 200 - 1000 Watts (throttle-able) would keep regular batteries closer to their maximum charge in such a system, and therefore extend their life. The waste heat from the generator and charging system might be used as well. I am concerned that the woodgas generator on a boat still requires an air intake, and, in the poor conditions that one might cause one to use the motor for an extended period, one must be concerned about sea water entering the generator. If one draws air from inside the cabin, OK, but then one has to be more confident of their shutoff valve to protect against carbon monoxide. To my knowledge Stirling engines have a very low power to weight, but I would be happy to find out what advances have been made to improve that aspect. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: nicnac66@... Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:39:18 +0200 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Extended calms with overcast: Woodgas renewable? My grand father has had an little truck with an wood gas generator after ww2. He had to fire it on an houre before useing. This is nothing for a dangerous situations. But it's possible to start with gasoline an switch to wood gas when ready. 2011/8/25 Nic Nac > If You like to use wood as fuel, whats about a stirling engine? > Stilrlings are undestructable low tech just what we need and not so big, > dangerous and work intensive like steam engines > > You cane use it directly or more comforable for loading the batteries and > drive eletrical. > I read somewhere that some swedish submarines run withe strilings. > > > > 2011/8/24 James Pronk > >> This would be interesting if you can understand it >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0c51G2kUOGw >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lots of info on wood gas online. I love the trash powered honda >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JyazgRBtq8&feature=related >> James >> [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]| 26500|26440|2011-08-26 17:55:35|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|James and all, I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps were too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I backgouge that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but I was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the cause. However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the cross-section is gone. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y Suggestions are always welcomed Doug --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and 1/8".  > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding school.  >   > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: James Pronk > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > >   > Hey Doug > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and without the bevel? > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > James > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > From: Tom Mann > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > >   > > Doug > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Mann > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > doug > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > > streight . > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > Tom > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > > left > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > that's > > > a > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > > added > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > > backs > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > upward; > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > welds > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > into > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > attempt, > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26501|26469|2011-08-26 18:17:10|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Doug ... I've never used AGM batteries; but yes, from what I've read about them they shouldn't be discharged beyond 50%, and they don't like rapid recharging. I'm assuming that if I recharge by (regulated) solar panels the rapid-recharge problem will be less of an issue. If I can fit 2 or 3 200W solar panels on the boat, then (given our climate here) I might be able to re-charge the batteries enough to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. Solar panels seem to be getting cheaper, smaller and more efficient by the day. I'm hoping the panels will have a reasonably long lifespan. AGM batteries do indeed cost a lot; but they are allegedly nearly completely maintenance-free. I was going to put in 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM units, to run a 48V motor. The AGM's weigh about 35kg each and cost about $360 each, with a life expectancy of maybe 5 to 7 years. So in about 6 years I'll have to spend another $1,500 to replace them. OTOH: If I installed a 12HP diesel engine, and used it for the same 10 hours/week, at *todays* Australian diesel prices I would spend about $8,000 on diesel fuel alone over the same 6-year period. Not to mention maintenance etc on the diesel engine itself. So I figure that it's not going to take too long for the whole electric propulsion system to pay for itself. Anyway, that's the theory! :-) I don't know anyone with any type of electric-powered boat, so I'm working in the dark a bit on this topic. However, I think an electric-propulsion system might work out for me, and it's probably worth a try. Cheers ... Kim. PS: Of course, there are some pundits who predict fuel prices will be going through the roof in the near future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). If so, that would make electric propulsion even more attractive. But maybe I've just been watching too many Mad Max movies! :-) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > AGM's are great batteries, but I have killed 4 of the now. They don't survive deep discharge like lead acid's will. They also don't take over or quick charging well. And they are an expensive battery to replace. Just something to think about. > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com | 26502|26440|2011-08-26 18:42:26|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Doug good fitup is the key, if you can keep a consistant gap it would weld a lot easier. One thing I noticed there is if I was doing it I would clean the surface a little with floppy sanding disk just before welding about 1/4" or so both sides of weld groove, The sides of the weld will burn in a little better not having mill scale and light rust there. Tom On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com < svseeker@...> wrote: > James and all, > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was > anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, > but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps were > too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I backgouge > that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but I > was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the cause. > However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the > cross-section is gone. > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > Suggestions are always welcomed > Doug > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control > than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I > think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to > take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and > 1/8". > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding > school. > >  > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: James Pronk > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > >  > > Hey Doug > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and > without the bevel? > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out > the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the > weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > James > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > From: Tom Mann > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > >  > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > and I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26503|26469|2011-08-26 18:56:35|Doug Jackson|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Kim I am following your plans closely because I had the same thoughts.  I will not mind firing up the diesel when someone else is paying the bill, but electric, even if it is short and slow, it's still cheap.  I've got a web page under construction with my collection of ideas and examples on the topic: http://www.submarineboat.com/hybrid_electric.htm%c2%a0 About half way down the page there is a 42' electric boat.  I think my current leaning is toward second hand golf cart or fork lift batteries, because I figure they can be found on tourist islands with enough useful life in them to store considerable amp hours but not enough for 36 holes of golf.  Were headed back to Vancouver Island soon to pick up the a Hundested controllable pitch prop system from Paul Liebenberg. Were going to have to figure out how to build blades for it but once that is done we'll have a prop that can be pitched for an electric drive or the 200Hp cummins.  We'll leave with just the cummins, but we can at least add an electric motor later. Best of Luck and keep the progress coming.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Kim To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:17 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?   Hi Doug ... I've never used AGM batteries; but yes, from what I've read about them they shouldn't be discharged beyond 50%, and they don't like rapid recharging. I'm assuming that if I recharge by (regulated) solar panels the rapid-recharge problem will be less of an issue. If I can fit 2 or 3 200W solar panels on the boat, then (given our climate here) I might be able to re-charge the batteries enough to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. Solar panels seem to be getting cheaper, smaller and more efficient by the day. I'm hoping the panels will have a reasonably long lifespan. AGM batteries do indeed cost a lot; but they are allegedly nearly completely maintenance-free. I was going to put in 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM units, to run a 48V motor. The AGM's weigh about 35kg each and cost about $360 each, with a life expectancy of maybe 5 to 7 years. So in about 6 years I'll have to spend another $1,500 to replace them. OTOH: If I installed a 12HP diesel engine, and used it for the same 10 hours/week, at *todays* Australian diesel prices I would spend about $8,000 on diesel fuel alone over the same 6-year period. Not to mention maintenance etc on the diesel engine itself. So I figure that it's not going to take too long for the whole electric propulsion system to pay for itself. Anyway, that's the theory! :-) I don't know anyone with any type of electric-powered boat, so I'm working in the dark a bit on this topic. However, I think an electric-propulsion system might work out for me, and it's probably worth a try. Cheers ... Kim. PS: Of course, there are some pundits who predict fuel prices will be going through the roof in the near future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). If so, that would make electric propulsion even more attractive. But maybe I've just been watching too many Mad Max movies! :-) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > AGM's are great batteries, but I have killed 4 of the now. They don't survive deep discharge like lead acid's will. They also don't take over or quick charging well. And they are an expensive battery to replace. Just something to think about. > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26504|26440|2011-08-26 19:03:27|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Damn Tom are you pyschic?  An armature was just telling me the same thing on YouTube comments and suggested I ask a pro.  I told him I posted the video here where there are pros. :)   Hitting it with a flap disk easy enough to do, so I'll add that to the process.  Thanks!   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Doug good fitup is the key, if you can keep a consistant gap it would weld a lot easier. One thing I noticed there is if I was doing it I would clean the surface a little with floppy sanding disk just before welding about 1/4" or so both sides of weld groove, The sides of the weld will burn in a little better not having mill scale and light rust there. Tom On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com < svseeker@...> wrote: > James and all, > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was > anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, > but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps were > too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I backgouge > that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but I > was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the cause. > However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the > cross-section is gone. > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > Suggestions are always welcomed > Doug > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control > than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I > think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to > take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and > 1/8". > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding > school. > >  > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: James Pronk > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > >  > > Hey Doug > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and > without the bevel? > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out > the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the > weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > James > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > From: Tom Mann > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > >  > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > and I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip > it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more > weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26505|26469|2011-08-26 19:07:35|Jimbo|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Yes, we use twin 8 hp on our 40', 6t boat. Very convenient, they swing up when we sail for zero drag, easy maintenance, occupy no interior space etc...... It was one of the characteristics I was looking for when researching. On 26/08/2011, at 2:52 PM, "brentswain38" wrote: Outboards are quick and simple solutions. If you have problems, you can easily take the whole package to the mechanic. They are very prone to corrosion, and have a much shorter life than a diesel. My first boat had an outboard in a well. When I got to New Zealand, I couldn't wait to get a diesel installed. Outboards have improved drastically since then, with sealed electronic ignition a huge improvement. However, while in the building stage, if you plan to use an outboard, you should still install a stern tube, exhaust port, and engine mounts, to leave the option of an inboard engine, easily made in the future. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Kim > electric has a lot of pro's and con's, biggest draw back on a smaller boat > is the weight, all them batteries add up quick and then trying to find a > place to put large solar panels. The batteries need to be ventalated to the > out side also unless you go with AGM's . I think the bigest bang for the > buck on that size of boat would be an outboard on a bracket. > Tom > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Kim wrote: > > > > > Hi Brent and all ... > > > > I've been thinking a lot about putting an electric motor in my twin-keel > > Swain 26, and I think I will indeed go down that path. The initial setup > > cost will be about the same as a diesel installation. Maybe a bit less. > > Given the current state of development in solar panels, I should be able to > > generate enough power to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. That will have > > to do me. I'm not trying to be "green": it's a simple case of financial > > necessity. I'll be retiring in a couple of years and I doubt I'll be able to > > afford much diesel then, particularly if fuel-price predictions come true. > > Plus there are other advantages: if I had a watermaker too, then there would > > be zero need to ever regularly call in to a dock to fill up with fuel and > > water. The "always-on" but silent power. No diesel smells in the cabin. > > Reduced maintenance. All that's very appealing. > > > > Anyway, if I go down this path it will mean that I don't need the fuel > > tanks under the cabin sole (but I would still weld in the equivalent of tank > > ends, as I think they are probably important structural floors). Instead, > > the batteries would sit where the diesel would otherwise be (and they would > > weigh about the same). For water tanks I would use bags under the sole > > (which I have successfully used in my earlier boats). I certainly wouldn't > > need any tank tops welded in place. > > > > On the 26-footer, the twin keels are held in place by lengths of angle > > (3"x3"x1/4"), 3 per side, that run transversely from the chine, over the top > > of the twin keels (that protrude into the hull by 3"), and terminate on the > > tank tops. If the tank tops aren't there, then I assume that they carry on > > and meet the angle from the other side at the centreline. Brent: I think > > that was how you used to originally build them? > > > > However, from the postings here I've got the impression that the tank tops > > are structurally pretty important for a twin keeler. For example: in your > > book, Brent, you mention that the join between the tank top and the hull > > side provides a strong point similar to the hull centreline. > > > > So the question is: Will I have a less-strong hull if I leave out the tank > > tops (and instead run the lengths of transverse angle to the centreline)? > > Can I be as confident running the boat hard aground if I do that? Should I > > increase the cross-section of the lengths of transverse angle to compensate? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26506|26469|2011-08-27 06:28:37|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Mig welding and butt welds|Doug .. I started with the whole boat building thing several years ago, and got sidetracked into industrial building cnc machines to make steel components, to make boats. What I have learned, through these last maybe 15.000 hours, and over 8 years, is that for making large-plate weldments, like you are doing, the spacing, and alignment, are far more important than it seems. Ie, in your video, test#4, you mention you did not get the plates aligned well. It is absolutely crucial that both the spacing and the alignment are much more aligned than you seem to be doing. 0.1 mm variation would be about the max you should ever have ! 1/16 inch mislignment, that you mention, is just no twhat you should accept, in me opinion and n my experience. This will increase your back-end work by not less than 10x to 20x. I would very strongly recommend you make some simple alignment jigs, and use these to align the plates very precisely. I really like your videos and comments. Keep them coming, Very well done. Example: One example of aligning plates horizontally. Sample alignment job. One possibility of n. Drill at hole, 6 mm at edge of 2 plates. Underneath you have a round, perfectly flat (turned on a lathe) piece. Like a huge washer. About 60-100 mm diameter, with a 30 mm recess of say 8 mm deep (so the weld form top wont stick to it). Say 25-30 mm thick. This disc is the bottom-one aligner. Another identical at top. Bottom one has a thread, about 5-6 mm. You bolt the two together, from the top. and then weld next to them. This gives you perfect horizontal alignment of the plates. You dont need to lift anything. The lower disc can be in air, or in a depression in the ground. The bottom disc can have a magnet for keeping it against the plate if needed. I suggest alignment holes about every 50-100 cm. Once the plates are tacked together, alignment jigs come off and lastly 6 mm holes are welded shut. The reason why this is important, is that alignment of plates to very good accuracy, will vastly reduce later grinding and fairing effort. 10 minutes in aligning will save 100-200 min in grinding, fairing, sanding etc. Really. Appearance will be very much improved. Likewise, small washers used as spacers (put a smooth flatbar piece on it so it wont fall through) between the plates, woudl give you excellent repeatable spacing between the plates. Likewise, a linear guide used to support and guide the disc grinder, would give you perfect edges of the plates, leading to consistent gaps. Likewise a secondary (small 4.5" size is good) grinder with 40-60 grit flapper wheel will clean the edge of the plates in a few seconds. Its very fast, on a second grinder, and gives you excellent results in seconds. I know you want to get on with welding the plates. I can only suggest that an extra 1-3 days spent on perfecting the setup, WILL save days to weeks later. If the plates are not uniformly aligned, throughout, you will likely hate yourself later, and spend huge amounts of time sanding, grinding, fairing, sanding, fairing, sanding and cursing why you did not take the 1/2 hour per plate to force them into alignment. I see this type of thing all the time in metalworking. I just spent 4 days adjusting and refining my heavy sheet-metal bender. Just so I can get accurate bends, with a repetable gap. Needed to tap & drill about 40 holes, by hand, 8 x 1.25 mm, in 30 mm thick tool steel. And then drill clearance holes, on each mounting hole, to provide .5 mm adjustment area. Assembly-reassembly in between. Repeat 30 times, and rinse .. But now, I can make brackets, chip shields, guards, and mounts in 3 minutes, compared to 3 hours by assembly,weld and grind. So, I lost 4 days, but gain it back in the 8-12 pieces I need just for the chip shields for my mills linear guides and ballscrews. And the big lathe, and the small lathe, and the drill press, and the lapping machine, and so on..| 26507|26469|2011-08-27 07:40:30|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Thanks Brent! I'll order some 75x75x10, and assemble it as you have outlined. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > 75x75x10 would work, and would probably be as strong as with the tank, especially if you made the aft one with a web between the horizontal one and the long ones. The aft one takes the most impact if you hit anything. | 26508|26469|2011-08-27 07:49:31|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Thanks Doug. I had already read the "Diesel/Hybrid/Electric Drive" page on your excellent website. By the sound of it, you will end up with the best of all worlds with the propulsion system(s) you are planning. I think "RV Seeker" is going to be an absolutely awesome ship when you have finished her! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Hi Kim > > I am following your plans closely because I had the same thoughts. I will not mind firing up the diesel when someone else is paying the bill, but electric, even if it is short and slow, it's still cheap. I've got a web page under construction with my collection of ideas and examples on the topic: http://www.submarineboat.com/hybrid_electric.htm   About half way down the page there is a 42' electric boat. > > I think my current leaning is toward second hand golf cart or fork lift batteries, because I figure they can be found on tourist islands with enough useful life in them to store considerable amp hours but not enough for 36 holes of golf. > > Were headed back to Vancouver Island soon to pick up the a Hundested controllable pitch prop system from Paul Liebenberg. Were going to have to figure out how to build blades for it but once that is done we'll have a prop that can be pitched for an electric drive or the 200Hp cummins. We'll leave with just the cummins, but we can at least add an electric motor later. > > Best of Luck and keep the progress coming. > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com | 26509|26469|2011-08-27 08:15:40|Tom Mann|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Kim 200 watt panel would be quite large in size, where are you thinking of mounting them? and can you get them in 48 volt Tom On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Kim wrote: > > Thanks Doug. > > I had already read the "Diesel/Hybrid/Electric Drive" page on your > excellent website. By the sound of it, you will end up with the best of all > worlds with the propulsion system(s) you are planning. I think "RV Seeker" > is going to be an absolutely awesome ship when you have finished her! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Hi Kim > > > > I am following your plans closely because I had the same thoughts. I will > not mind firing up the diesel when someone else is paying the bill, but > electric, even if it is short and slow, it's still cheap. I've got a web > page under construction with my collection of ideas and examples on the > topic: http://www.submarineboat.com/hybrid_electric.htm About half way > down the page there is a 42' electric boat. > > > > I think my current leaning is toward second hand golf cart or fork lift > batteries, because I figure they can be found on tourist islands with enough > useful life in them to store considerable amp hours but not enough for 36 > holes of golf. > > > > Were headed back to Vancouver Island soon to pick up the a Hundested > controllable pitch prop system from Paul Liebenberg. Were going to have to > figure out how to build blades for it but once that is done we'll have a > prop that can be pitched for an electric drive or the 200Hp cummins. We'll > leave with just the cummins, but we can at least add an electric motor > later. > > > > Best of Luck and keep the progress coming. > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26510|26440|2011-08-27 08:46:33|Tom Mann|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|LOL Doug Wish I was at times I was thinking with those large heavy plates that is a lot of time and work flipping them, anyway you could get them tacked and jig them up vertical, welding would be a bit harder to do vertical up but when you get it dialed in not so bad? That or set them up on some heavy duty saw horses then you could weld the bottom side overhead. Tom On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Damn Tom are you pyschic? An armature was just telling me the same thing > on YouTube comments and suggested I ask a pro. I told him I posted the > video here where there are pros. :) Hitting it with a flap disk easy > enough to do, so I'll add that to the process. Thanks! > > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:42 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > good fitup is the key, if you can keep a consistant gap it would weld a lot > easier. > One thing I noticed there is if I was doing it I would clean the surface a > little with floppy sanding disk just before welding about 1/4" or so both > sides of weld groove, The sides of the > weld will burn in a little better not having mill scale and light rust > there. > Tom > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com < > svseeker@...> wrote: > > > James and all, > > > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was > > anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, > > but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps > were > > too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I > backgouge > > that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but > I > > was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the > cause. > > However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the > > cross-section is gone. > > > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > > > Suggestions are always welcomed > > Doug > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control > > than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I > > think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got > to > > take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and > > 1/8". > > > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding > > school. > > >  > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: James Pronk > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > >  > > > Hey Doug > > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with > and > > without the bevel? > > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with > out > > the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of > the > > weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > > James > > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > > > >  > > > > > > Doug > > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way > or > > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so > long > > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final > welding > > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > > and I > > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > > "1/16 > > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > > sense > > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > > And > > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > > keep > > > > streight . > > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > > tack > > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool > flip > > it > > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > > staying > > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > > is > > > > left > > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. > It > > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > > that's > > > > > a > > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get > more > > weld > > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > > being > > > > > added > > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > > strong > > > > > backs > > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > > strong > > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > > upward; > > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start > adding > > > > > welds > > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > > direction. > > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort > back > > > > into > > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this > next > > > > > attempt, > > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26511|26469|2011-08-27 10:59:58|coreyzzzz2000|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Tom ... > > Yes, electric propulsion probably has more con's than pro's at the moment. I was going to use AGM batteries, and they are indeed heavy. But they will easily fit under my wheelhouse sole where the fuel tanks would otherwise be, so their weight is down low. I'll save some weight by not carrying fuel, and not having a diesel engine. The solar panels I was going to mount on an aluminum frame over the cockpit. > > Despite the disadvantages, I'd like to give it a try. It might work out to be OK for me. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > I have kicked this around also. With battery technology getting better every day it might make more sense than diesel in the near future. One thing I wonder about is safety systems for high voltage. (All those batteries wired in series.) I think everyone considering using batteries should read this article by John Wayland. John owns the world's quickest street legal electric car and has documented his 20 year journey for everyone to see. Good stuff. Link: http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/blog/?page_id=10 A little mistake or accident like his would be deadly on a boat. I throw this in just for discussion and in the hopes that it may help save even one person from a similar issue. Cheers, Corey BTW. Wayland now runs a battery made by Dow Kokam that puts out enough energy to propel the car down a 1/4 mile drag strip in less than 10 seconds AND has a range of 90 miles. When I looked into getting such a battery it was impossible. It seems they are mostly selling to the military, but like most things this technology should eventually trickle out to the public.| 26512|26469|2011-08-27 11:32:09|Tom Mann|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Yep it can be very dangerous, one bank at 48 volt with group 24's will put out couple thousand amps, enough to burn through whatever it is shorted against like hull or fuel tanks . I have see quite a few 24 volt setups burn the battery post clean off on equipment when I was in the service. Not fun trying to unhook the cables when there burning. One thing they drummed in our heads Don't wear watches, rings or necklass when working around battries, can ruin your whole day Tom On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM, coreyzzzz2000 wrote: > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom ... > > > > Yes, electric propulsion probably has more con's than pro's at the > moment. I was going to use AGM batteries, and they are indeed heavy. But > they will easily fit under my wheelhouse sole where the fuel tanks would > otherwise be, so their weight is down low. I'll save some weight by not > carrying fuel, and not having a diesel engine. The solar panels I was going > to mount on an aluminum frame over the cockpit. > > > > Despite the disadvantages, I'd like to give it a try. It might work out > to be OK for me. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > > I have kicked this around also. With battery technology getting better > every day it might make more sense than diesel in the near future. > > One thing I wonder about is safety systems for high voltage. (All those > batteries wired in series.) I think everyone considering using batteries > should read this article by John Wayland. John owns the world's quickest > street legal electric car and has documented his 20 year journey for > everyone to see. Good stuff. > > Link: http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/blog/?page_id=10 > > A little mistake or accident like his would be deadly on a boat. > > I throw this in just for discussion and in the hopes that it may help save > even one person from a similar issue. > > Cheers, > Corey > > BTW. Wayland now runs a battery made by Dow Kokam that puts out enough > energy to propel the car down a 1/4 mile drag strip in less than 10 seconds > AND has a range of 90 miles. When I looked into getting such a battery it > was impossible. It seems they are mostly selling to the military, but like > most things this technology should eventually trickle out to the public. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26513|26440|2011-08-27 13:46:19|brentswain38|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Start with very short welds switching from side to side. As you get more metal on , your welds can become longer, but not too long. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > James and all, > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps were too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I backgouge that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but I was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the cause. However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the cross-section is gone. > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > Suggestions are always welcomed > Doug > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and 1/8".  > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding school.  > >   > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: James Pronk > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > >   > > Hey Doug > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and without the bevel? > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > James > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > From: Tom Mann > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > >   > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! 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@! 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@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26514|26469|2011-08-27 17:44:44|David Frantz|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Don't forget: 1. Batteries will require a maintenance charge. In other words the "tank" leaks. 2. Once you have a nice electrical source the temptation is to use it for things besides propulsion. In the end I would err on the side of excess panel capacity. It would help make up for days of modest recharging, or heavy non transportation related uses. Oh a hundred amp hour battery strikes me as a little on the small side. You could also look into other battery technologies, but there is not doubt lead technologies are the easiest. Other wise I think you are on the right path. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Doug ... > > I've never used AGM batteries; but yes, from what I've read about them they shouldn't be discharged beyond 50%, and they don't like rapid recharging. I'm assuming that if I recharge by (regulated) solar panels the rapid-recharge problem will be less of an issue. > > If I can fit 2 or 3 200W solar panels on the boat, then (given our climate here) I might be able to re-charge the batteries enough to motor for about 10 hours/week or so. Solar panels seem to be getting cheaper, smaller and more efficient by the day. I'm hoping the panels will have a reasonably long lifespan. > > AGM batteries do indeed cost a lot; but they are allegedly nearly completely maintenance-free. I was going to put in 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM units, to run a 48V motor. The AGM's weigh about 35kg each and cost about $360 each, with a life expectancy of maybe 5 to 7 years. So in about 6 years I'll have to spend another $1,500 to replace them. > > OTOH: If I installed a 12HP diesel engine, and used it for the same 10 hours/week, at *todays* Australian diesel prices I would spend about $8,000 on diesel fuel alone over the same 6-year period. Not to mention maintenance etc on the diesel engine itself. So I figure that it's not going to take too long for the whole electric propulsion system to pay for itself. > > Anyway, that's the theory! :-) I don't know anyone with any type of electric-powered boat, so I'm working in the dark a bit on this topic. However, I think an electric-propulsion system might work out for me, and it's probably worth a try. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: Of course, there are some pundits who predict fuel prices will be going through the roof in the near future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). If so, that would make electric propulsion even more attractive. But maybe I've just been watching too many Mad Max movies! :-) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: >> AGM's are great batteries, but I have killed 4 of the now. They don't survive deep discharge like lead acid's will. They also don't take over or quick charging well. And they are an expensive battery to replace. Just something to think about. >> Doug >> SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26515|26469|2011-08-28 07:55:32|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Tom ... I've seen advertisements for 200W panels that are 1.480m x 0.992m. I was hoping to mount 2 over the cockpit (which would also provide cockpit shade). Downside to that location is that they would be subject to boom shadow; but I've read that newer panels are apparently less affected by that. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Kim > 200 watt panel would be quite large in size, where are you thinking of > mounting them? and can you get them in 48 volt > Tom | 26516|26469|2011-08-28 08:08:02|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi David ... Yes, having all those amps there would indeed make it tempting to use the motor "fuel" for other stuff! It would be good to have more/bigger batteries; but the weight of 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM's is about the max I could carry on my little 26-footer. I understand that if fully charged they would give me about 3~4 hours running time. I'm hoping that when I have to replace them in 5~6 years battery technology would have advanced a bit, and I might then get more amps for the same weight. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Don't forget: > > 1. Batteries will require a maintenance charge. In other words the "tank" leaks. > > 2. Once you have a nice electrical source the temptation is to use it for things besides propulsion. > > In the end I would err on the side of excess panel capacity. It would help make up for days of modest recharging, or heavy non transportation related uses. > > Oh a hundred amp hour battery strikes me as a little on the small side. You could also look into other battery technologies, but there is not doubt lead technologies are the easiest. > > Other wise I think you are on the right path. > > Sent from my iPhone | 26517|26440|2011-08-28 08:50:24|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Yup, I think I was being to aggressive with the weld lengths too.    Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   Start with very short welds switching from side to side. As you get more metal on , your welds can become longer, but not too long. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > James and all, > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps were too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I backgouge that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but I was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the cause. However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the cross-section is gone. > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > Suggestions are always welcomed > Doug > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got to take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and 1/8".  > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding school.  > >   > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: James Pronk > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > >   > > Hey Doug > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with and without the bevel? > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with out the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of the weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > James > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > From: Tom Mann > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > >   > > > > Doug > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way or > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so long > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final welding > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, and I > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By "1/16 > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes sense > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. And > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Mann > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and keep > > > streight . > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then tack > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool flip it > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > Tom > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been staying > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that is > > > left > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. It > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > that's > > > > a > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get more weld > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall being > > > > added > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for strong > > > > backs > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the strong > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > upward; > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start adding > > > > welds > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same direction. > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort back > > > into > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this next > > > > attempt, > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! 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@! 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@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26518|26469|2011-08-28 08:54:25|Doug Jackson|Re: Mig welding and butt welds|Good stuff. Thank you for all of the suggestions.  I'm going to play with your suggestions.  Working in daylight, cleaning my glasses, and taking my time will help too :)   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: ""hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 5:29 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mig welding and butt welds   Doug .. I started with the whole boat building thing several years ago, and got sidetracked into industrial building cnc machines to make steel components, to make boats. What I have learned, through these last maybe 15.000 hours, and over 8 years, is that for making large-plate weldments, like you are doing, the spacing, and alignment, are far more important than it seems. Ie, in your video, test#4, you mention you did not get the plates aligned well. It is absolutely crucial that both the spacing and the alignment are much more aligned than you seem to be doing. 0.1 mm variation would be about the max you should ever have ! 1/16 inch mislignment, that you mention, is just no twhat you should accept, in me opinion and n my experience. This will increase your back-end work by not less than 10x to 20x. I would very strongly recommend you make some simple alignment jigs, and use these to align the plates very precisely. I really like your videos and comments. Keep them coming, Very well done. Example: One example of aligning plates horizontally. Sample alignment job. One possibility of n. Drill at hole, 6 mm at edge of 2 plates. Underneath you have a round, perfectly flat (turned on a lathe) piece. Like a huge washer. About 60-100 mm diameter, with a 30 mm recess of say 8 mm deep (so the weld form top wont stick to it). Say 25-30 mm thick. This disc is the bottom-one aligner. Another identical at top. Bottom one has a thread, about 5-6 mm. You bolt the two together, from the top. and then weld next to them. This gives you perfect horizontal alignment of the plates. You dont need to lift anything. The lower disc can be in air, or in a depression in the ground. The bottom disc can have a magnet for keeping it against the plate if needed. I suggest alignment holes about every 50-100 cm. Once the plates are tacked together, alignment jigs come off and lastly 6 mm holes are welded shut. The reason why this is important, is that alignment of plates to very good accuracy, will vastly reduce later grinding and fairing effort. 10 minutes in aligning will save 100-200 min in grinding, fairing, sanding etc. Really. Appearance will be very much improved. Likewise, small washers used as spacers (put a smooth flatbar piece on it so it wont fall through) between the plates, woudl give you excellent repeatable spacing between the plates. Likewise, a linear guide used to support and guide the disc grinder, would give you perfect edges of the plates, leading to consistent gaps. Likewise a secondary (small 4.5" size is good) grinder with 40-60 grit flapper wheel will clean the edge of the plates in a few seconds. Its very fast, on a second grinder, and gives you excellent results in seconds. I know you want to get on with welding the plates. I can only suggest that an extra 1-3 days spent on perfecting the setup, WILL save days to weeks later. If the plates are not uniformly aligned, throughout, you will likely hate yourself later, and spend huge amounts of time sanding, grinding, fairing, sanding, fairing, sanding and cursing why you did not take the 1/2 hour per plate to force them into alignment. I see this type of thing all the time in metalworking. I just spent 4 days adjusting and refining my heavy sheet-metal bender. Just so I can get accurate bends, with a repetable gap. Needed to tap & drill about 40 holes, by hand, 8 x 1.25 mm, in 30 mm thick tool steel. And then drill clearance holes, on each mounting hole, to provide .5 mm adjustment area. Assembly-reassembly in between. Repeat 30 times, and rinse .. But now, I can make brackets, chip shields, guards, and mounts in 3 minutes, compared to 3 hours by assembly,weld and grind. So, I lost 4 days, but gain it back in the 8-12 pieces I need just for the chip shields for my mills linear guides and ballscrews. And the big lathe, and the small lathe, and the drill press, and the lapping machine, and so on.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26519|26469|2011-08-28 12:27:42|David Frantz|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|I was thinking actually about excess recharging capacity. However your point is still valid you need some place to put stuff. As to batteries that is a problem also. I've always thought that the best place for them would be in the keel. Unfortunately I'm not a ships designer so I'm not sure a keel can be designed to handle batteries and remain a viable keel from the sailing standpoint. There is the possibility of buying the batteries in single or dual cell versions where the batteries are tall and narrow. In any event whatever you do take precautions to handle battery gases properly. About that excess recharging capability. My thought here is that it would be very easy to employ that power during daylight hours to drive things like cabin fans. Even small boxer fans would have a big impact exchanging air faster than nature could. This might very well be a little load but throw in a radio and a few other drains and all of a sudden you aren't charging that battery bank as fast as you think you are. Sent from my iPad On Aug 28, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi David ... > > Yes, having all those amps there would indeed make it tempting to use the motor "fuel" for other stuff! It would be good to have more/bigger batteries; but the weight of 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM's is about the max I could carry on my little 26-footer. I understand that if fully charged they would give me about 3~4 hours running time. I'm hoping that when I have to replace them in 5~6 years battery technology would have advanced a bit, and I might then get more amps for the same weight. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >> >> Don't forget: >> >> 1. Batteries will require a maintenance charge. In other words the "tank" leaks. >> >> 2. Once you have a nice electrical source the temptation is to use it for things besides propulsion. >> >> In the end I would err on the side of excess panel capacity. It would help make up for days of modest recharging, or heavy non transportation related uses. >> >> Oh a hundred amp hour battery strikes me as a little on the small side. You could also look into other battery technologies, but there is not doubt lead technologies are the easiest. >> >> Other wise I think you are on the right path. >> >> Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26520|26469|2011-08-29 00:21:17|wild_explorer|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|If you are going to use AGM, check ODYSSEY batteries. Lot of information on manufacturer website. And they are telling the truth - real service life will be about 3 years for high quality AGM battery. Technical information is very helpful too. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi David ... > > Yes, having all those amps there would indeed make it tempting to use the motor "fuel" for other stuff! It would be good to have more/bigger batteries; but the weight of 4 x 12V 100Ah AGM's is about the max I could carry on my little 26-footer. I understand that if fully charged they would give me about 3~4 hours running time. I'm hoping that when I have to replace them in 5~6 years battery technology would have advanced a bit, and I might then get more amps for the same weight. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > Don't forget: > > > > 1. Batteries will require a maintenance charge. In other words the "tank" leaks. > > > > 2. Once you have a nice electrical source the temptation is to use it for things besides propulsion. > > > > In the end I would err on the side of excess panel capacity. It would help make up for days of modest recharging, or heavy non transportation related uses. > > > > Oh a hundred amp hour battery strikes me as a little on the small side. You could also look into other battery technologies, but there is not doubt lead technologies are the easiest. > > > > Other wise I think you are on the right path. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > | 26521|26521|2011-08-29 04:43:41|freshwaternoel|hull longitudinals|i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage| 26522|26469|2011-08-29 07:26:18|scott|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|I have two 205 watt panels that are going to be installed on the soon to be hard doger. At full output they will put out right at 30 amps at 12 volts. So figure about 7.5 amps at 48 volts. it would be enough current to motor slowly directly off the solar panels. This would be max current at high noon with no shade though. Your average would be lower. I have a MPPT controller that will help maximize my solar harvest. I would highly advise having one. They are big panels though. Mine weigh in at about 40 lbs each. I have thought about having two on the dodger and two on a bimini. They only thin I don't like about it is adding the extra 160 lbs of weight up high. Especially the 80 aft over the bimini. Anyway, I like living a power rich existence. Lots of fans, lights, refrigeration, freezer, Lots of computer usage with big monitors. I also like to use them as my chart-plotter etc... Throwing up nav software on a 20+ inch screen is da bomb!! Cost wise the solar panels have been getting cheaper and cheaper. I paid about 2 dollars a watt when I bought my existing panels. since then I have seen panels for as low as 1 dollar a watt on sale. company called Sun Electric http://www.sunelec.com right now they have solar panels for between 78 cents a watt and $1.40 a watt on the low end. These are all cosmetically blemished units that have full power and warranties. I'm not affiliated just pointing to some really cheap panels. These things are heavy and they ship them on pallets. :( shipping hurts. If you bought an entire pallet load it would bring the`cost per panel down a lot. I bought two panels and the shipping raised the cost considerably. Still cheaper than anywhere else I could have sourced them. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Tom ... > > I've seen advertisements for 200W panels that are 1.480m x 0.992m. I was hoping to mount 2 over the cockpit (which would also provide cockpit shade). Downside to that location is that they would be subject to boom shadow; but I've read that newer panels are apparently less affected by that. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > | 26523|26469|2011-08-29 08:00:28|scott|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|for batteries in a keel here are some 2 volt cells that are 24 inches tall. http://www.sunelec.com/surrette-rolls-battery-2-volt-1766-amp-hour-2ks33ps-p-555.html dont know what the price is but 6 of the would give you 12 volts with 1700 amp hours of capacity. usable probably 850 amp hours for about 600 lbs of weight| 26524|26469|2011-08-29 08:00:33|scott|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|for batteries in a keel here are some 2 volt cells that are 24 inches tall. http://www.sunelec.com/surrette-rolls-battery-2-volt-1766-amp-hour-2ks33ps-p-555.html dont know what the price is but 6 of the would give you 12 volts with 1700 amp hours of capacity. usable probably 850 amp hours for about 600 lbs of weight| 26525|26469|2011-08-29 11:07:34|Matt Malone|Batteries, High currents, and finding shorts|Yes, very high currents from batteries will do some amazing things to batteries, posts, and very heavy cables. I strongly recommend a fusable link of some sort right at the battery post, but, some sort of restraint on the cable so it is not completely free when the link blows. Most of the time, the short would be obvious, but occasionally, it is not. What can be even more frustrating is when a short is intermittent. Here is a method to help find those hard-to-find or intermittent shorts, without blowing a second fusable link straight off. Of course, turn off / unplug all appliances. Put a moderate current appliance in series with the battery connection -- i.e. reconnect the wire that would normally connect directly to the post, instead connect it through a 120V electric kettle or heater, not directly. This will dump about an Amp or two through a 12V / 24V system, with the short taking the lion's share of that current. Some appliances will really not like such throttled currents, motors might not start, and might instead stand stationary, overheating one winding. Refrigeration is one motor driven appliance I would be very cautious with. Best to disconnect those and leave those circuits until last if nothing else can be found. Now, using a digital volt meter, measure the voltage across the kettle. If it reads close to battery voltage, the short persists and is located in always-on wiring, before the switches. If the voltage across the kettle reads close to zero, the short is temporarily gone, even if some constant-connected appliance is drawing a tiny current and causing the voltage to not be exactly zero. If the short is gone, turn the appliances on and off, one at a time, and see when the voltage across the kettle goes near battery voltage. Of course, very high current appliances will do this, even where there is no short, because their resistance is far lower than that of the kettle. High power, low voltage incandescent lights, like car head lights, would be an example of such an appliance. Make a note of these and move on. The branch where the short is will likely be conspicuous, or worst case, there will be a couple of possibilities, all of them appliances where high currents are to be expected. Measure the voltage drop across each of the high current appliance. If the voltage of the appliance + the voltage on the kettle = battery voltage, then the short is not here. This should narrow it down to one branch circuit if the short is in a branch. If the short is intermittent, then try repeating the activities just prior to the fusable link blowing, keeping an eye on the Voltage on the kettle. This might help locate the short directly, or at least narrow it down. Whether the short is narrowed down to one branch, or area, or exists in always-on wiring, now it is time to use the Volt meter set to millivolts. Connect one probe just downstream of the kettle, and now start probing the suspected wires with the other probe. If the short is in always-on wiring, probing each of these wires as they branch off of the battery cable (which should only occur in fuse panels in a properly wired boat ! but, I am realistic about what wiring might be found in a boat) will find that all but one wire will read zero millivolts difference, because, those wires have no current flowing in them. The wire leading to the short will have current flowing in it. Even regular wire, at a couple Amperes of current, will drop a tiny voltage, readable on the millivolt scale of a Volt meter. The voltage will increase as you move away from the kettle toward the short, until you pass the point where the short is. Beyond this point, the voltage will remain (nearly) constant. This is very useful for finding shorts where wires cross through hidden spaces -- beyond the hidden space, the voltage drop will not change. I am thinking here of wires that short where they cross through bulkheads or behind things one does not want to rip out without a solid reason to do so. More often then not, when one does such a systematic search, the short will be found before the Volt meter provides the conclusive proof of its location. It is not very likely that the current throttled through a kettle, flowing through a short, will be able to cause a fire in a low voltage battery system like 12 or 24 Volts, however, it is possible so keep alert for slowly developing smoke or any other signs of trouble. Keep alert for fuel leaks or anything else that might interact badly with the experiments. Disconnect immediately if in doubt, one can always re-connect the kettle if it turns out to be nothing. Disconnect the circuit when you take a break and walk away from it. I have used a similar method to find shorts in everything from computer circuit boards to vehicles. Of course, if one follows the principle of putting in a properly sized fuse each time current is divided in branches (like at bus bars where battery cables join to branch circuits), the pattern in which the fuses are blown or not blown, will likely lead you to the problem, and be far better protection against fire. I like automotive fuses in my boat and put them in-line with each separate long run of wire. Therefore, if I have one switch that turns on 3 lights (nav lights) at different points in the boat, I will have one fuse before the switch at the bus bar, and three fuses, one for each run of wire after the switch. Automotive fuses come in many sizes, it is easy to carry many spares, and they are colour coded to help limit mistakes. I would use them in-line with long runs of wire even if I were to install a proper marine fuse panel. Realistically, I have seen few fuses used on the wires around engines. There currently were no fuses on the wires leading to the Atomic 4 in my newest boat, something I will have to look at carefully. Moving back to the battery, I would still have a fusable link at the battery terminal, to guard against shorts in the cables between the post and the main fuse box. Vibrations, and contact between the cable and anything can cause the insulation to be worn through, and cause a short. I have investigated fires in vehicles that do not have such a fusable link. If they had had one, it may have prevented the fire, or prevented catastrophic shorting of the battery cables (because the insulation was burned), and rapid development of a small fire that originated from some other cause. I do not want that in my boat. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: tazmannm@... Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:32:07 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: How structurally important are the tank tops? Yep it can be very dangerous, one bank at 48 volt with group 24's will put out couple thousand amps, enough to burn through whatever it is shorted against like hull or fuel tanks . I have see quite a few 24 volt setups burn the battery post clean off on equipment when I was in the service. Not fun trying to unhook the cables when there burning. One thing they drummed in our heads Don't wear watches, rings or necklass when working around battries, can ruin your whole day Tom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26526|26521|2011-08-29 11:24:22|Kim|Re: hull longitudinals|Hi Noel ... Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage | 26527|26469|2011-08-29 12:01:51|Kim|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|Hi Scott ... Many thanks for your "real world" report on the big 200W solar panels. They sound very promising indeed. I should be able to fit 2 of them on an aluminum frame over the cockpit of my 26-footer. Hopefully that just might be enough for me. Probably their only downside at the moment is their weight; but it seems a huge amount of R&D is going into them these days, and they are definitely getting cheaper and smaller (for a given output) as time goes by. Maybe they might even be a bit lighter by the time I have to purchase mine. It wont happen in my lifetime, but maybe future generations might be able to buy solar-panel sails and deck paint!! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I have two 205 watt panels that are going to be installed on the soon to be hard doger. At full output they will put out right at 30 amps at 12 volts. So figure about 7.5 amps at 48 volts. it would be enough current to motor slowly directly off the solar panels. This would be max current at high noon with no shade though. Your average would be lower. I have a MPPT controller that will help maximize my solar harvest. I would highly advise having one. > > They are big panels though. Mine weigh in at about 40 lbs each. I have thought about having two on the dodger and two on a bimini. They only thin I don't like about it is adding the extra 160 lbs of weight up high. Especially the 80 aft over the bimini. > > Anyway, I like living a power rich existence. Lots of fans, lights, refrigeration, freezer, Lots of computer usage with big monitors. I also like to use them as my chart-plotter etc... Throwing up nav software on a 20+ inch screen is da bomb!! > > Cost wise the solar panels have been getting cheaper and cheaper. I paid about 2 dollars a watt when I bought my existing panels. since then I have seen panels for as low as 1 dollar a watt on sale. company called Sun Electric http://www.sunelec.com > right now they have solar panels for between 78 cents a watt and $1.40 a watt on the low end. These are all cosmetically blemished units that have full power and warranties. I'm not affiliated just pointing to some really cheap panels. These things are heavy and they ship them on pallets. :( shipping hurts. If you bought an entire pallet load it would bring the`cost per panel down a lot. I bought two panels and the shipping raised the cost considerably. Still cheaper than anywhere else I could have sourced them. > scott | 26528|26469|2011-08-29 12:25:04|j fisher|Re: How structurally important are the tank tops?|While not your super high wattage, it is interesting technology. http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/total-solar-solutions/power-pier.php On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Kim wrote: > ** > > > > Hi Scott ... > > Many thanks for your "real world" report on the big 200W solar panels. They > sound very promising indeed. I should be able to fit 2 of them on an > aluminum frame over the cockpit of my 26-footer. Hopefully that just might > be enough for me. > > Probably their only downside at the moment is their weight; but it seems a > huge amount of R&D is going into them these days, and they are definitely > getting cheaper and smaller (for a given output) as time goes by. Maybe they > might even be a bit lighter by the time I have to purchase mine. > > It wont happen in my lifetime, but maybe future generations might be able > to buy solar-panel sails and deck paint!! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > > > I have two 205 watt panels that are going to be installed on the soon to > be hard doger. At full output they will put out right at 30 amps at 12 > volts. So figure about 7.5 amps at 48 volts. it would be enough current to > motor slowly directly off the solar panels. This would be max current at > high noon with no shade though. Your average would be lower. I have a MPPT > controller that will help maximize my solar harvest. I would highly advise > having one. > > > > They are big panels though. Mine weigh in at about 40 lbs each. I have > thought about having two on the dodger and two on a bimini. They only thin I > don't like about it is adding the extra 160 lbs of weight up high. > Especially the 80 aft over the bimini. > > > > Anyway, I like living a power rich existence. Lots of fans, lights, > refrigeration, freezer, Lots of computer usage with big monitors. I also > like to use them as my chart-plotter etc... Throwing up nav software on a > 20+ inch screen is da bomb!! > > > > Cost wise the solar panels have been getting cheaper and cheaper. I paid > about 2 dollars a watt when I bought my existing panels. since then I have > seen panels for as low as 1 dollar a watt on sale. company called Sun > Electric http://www.sunelec.com > > right now they have solar panels for between 78 cents a watt and $1.40 a > watt on the low end. These are all cosmetically blemished units that have > full power and warranties. I'm not affiliated just pointing to some really > cheap panels. These things are heavy and they ship them on pallets. :( > shipping hurts. If you bought an entire pallet load it would bring the`cost > per panel down a lot. I bought two panels and the shipping raised the cost > considerably. Still cheaper than anywhere else I could have sourced them. > > scott > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26529|26521|2011-08-29 14:18:45|Matt Malone|Re: hull longitudinals|For hull stiffeners, I believe one assumes that the hull is the neutral plane, so for a 25x25x5 angle is I = sum(b d^3 / 12 + b * d * (offset of CM)^2) = 7.7 cm ^ 4 I for 32mm x5mm = 5.5cm ^4 I for 40mm x5mm = 10.7 cm^4 Note, 40x5 flat bar by itself is only 2.67 cm^4, it is tacking it to the hull, causing an offset in the plane of flexure that makes it stiffer. *BUT* This assumes no twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar. The side to side I of a flat bar is maybe than 20 times smaller than an angle. I know Moitessier recommended flatbar for exactly the reasons Noel gives. I can only imagine it was tacked in on both sides more frequently, so that the hull provided twist stiffness to the flatbar so it would not buckle. Buckling strength goes by 1/L^2, so putting in tacks at half the spacing makes it 4 times more resistant to buckling. Making the tacks long tacks would help too. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals Hi Noel ... Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26530|26521|2011-08-29 15:34:02|Kim|Re: hull longitudinals|Hi Matt ... I assume that when my friend told me what he thought were the equivalent flat bar dimensions to the angle, he may have been trying to compensate for, or eliminate, the twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar that you mention. However, possibly of more serious concern might be that using anything other than 25x25x5 angle might change the way the hull shape forms as the hull is pulled together. I have a vague recollection that Brent mentioned in a much earlier message that he once tried increasing the size of the angle for the stringers in his 40' design; but it subsequently adversely affected the hull shape. Anyway, it's always very interesting making these comparisons! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > For hull stiffeners, I believe one assumes that the hull is the neutral plane, so for a 25x25x5 angle is > > I = sum(b d^3 / 12 + b * d * (offset of CM)^2) = 7.7 cm ^ 4 > > I for 32mm x5mm = 5.5cm ^4 > > I for 40mm x5mm = 10.7 cm^4 > > Note, 40x5 flat bar by itself is only 2.67 cm^4, it is tacking it to the hull, causing an > offset in the plane of flexure that makes it stiffer. > > *BUT* > > This assumes no twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar. The side to side I of a flat bar is > maybe than 20 times smaller than an angle. I know Moitessier recommended flatbar for > exactly the reasons Noel gives. I can only imagine it was tacked in on both sides more > frequently, so that the hull provided twist stiffness to the flatbar so it would not buckle. Buckling > strength goes by 1/L^2, so putting in tacks at half the spacing makes it 4 times more resistant to > buckling. Making the tacks long tacks would help too. > > Matt > ------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > Hi Noel ... > > Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. > > Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. > > Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. > > Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. > > So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). > > However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. > > Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage | 26531|26521|2011-08-29 15:44:18|Matt Malone|Re: hull longitudinals|Absolutely right Kim. Changing anything in the Brent Swain formula for making his designs might well affect the the way it folds. Moitessier's boat first steel boat was made by a boiler maker, so I assume it was plated after the larger parts of the frame were in. However, after an orgami is folded, if one wanted to insert pre-curved flat bar as added stiffeners (accepting that tacking them such stiffeners in might change the fairness of the hull) that would be a different thing. Did Brent ever try that ? And how did that work out ? Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:00 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals Hi Matt ... I assume that when my friend told me what he thought were the equivalent flat bar dimensions to the angle, he may have been trying to compensate for, or eliminate, the twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar that you mention. However, possibly of more serious concern might be that using anything other than 25x25x5 angle might change the way the hull shape forms as the hull is pulled together. I have a vague recollection that Brent mentioned in a much earlier message that he once tried increasing the size of the angle for the stringers in his 40' design; but it subsequently adversely affected the hull shape. Anyway, it's always very interesting making these comparisons! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > For hull stiffeners, I believe one assumes that the hull is the neutral plane, so for a 25x25x5 angle is > > I = sum(b d^3 / 12 + b * d * (offset of CM)^2) = 7.7 cm ^ 4 > > I for 32mm x5mm = 5.5cm ^4 > > I for 40mm x5mm = 10.7 cm^4 > > Note, 40x5 flat bar by itself is only 2.67 cm^4, it is tacking it to the hull, causing an > offset in the plane of flexure that makes it stiffer. > > *BUT* > > This assumes no twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar. The side to side I of a flat bar is > maybe than 20 times smaller than an angle. I know Moitessier recommended flatbar for > exactly the reasons Noel gives. I can only imagine it was tacked in on both sides more > frequently, so that the hull provided twist stiffness to the flatbar so it would not buckle. Buckling > strength goes by 1/L^2, so putting in tacks at half the spacing makes it 4 times more resistant to > buckling. Making the tacks long tacks would help too. > > Matt > ------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > Hi Noel ... > > Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. > > Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. > > Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. > > Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. > > So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). > > However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. > > Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26532|26440|2011-08-30 12:13:33|Doug Jackson|Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion|Thanks Tom. We've considered welding them in the vertical but the chance of a thunderstorm popping up quickly is just too high, and out cranes will not take that kind of wind load.  Considered the saw horses too, but that's too much steel for my pocket book. We'll give it a go with the strong backs, and work on improving the initial fit up and alignment as recommended.     Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Tom Mann To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion   LOL Doug Wish I was at times I was thinking with those large heavy plates that is a lot of time and work flipping them, anyway you could get them tacked and jig them up vertical, welding would be a bit harder to do vertical up but when you get it dialed in not so bad? That or set them up on some heavy duty saw horses then you could weld the bottom side overhead. Tom On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Damn Tom are you pyschic? An armature was just telling me the same thing > on YouTube comments and suggested I ask a pro. I told him I posted the > video here where there are pros. :) Hitting it with a flap disk easy > enough to do, so I'll add that to the process. Thanks! > > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Mann > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:42 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > Doug > good fitup is the key, if you can keep a consistant gap it would weld a lot > easier. > One thing I noticed there is if I was doing it I would clean the surface a > little with floppy sanding disk just before welding about 1/4" or so both > sides of weld groove, The sides of the > weld will burn in a little better not having mill scale and light rust > there. > Tom > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com < > svseeker@...> wrote: > > > James and all, > > > > I've gone back and tried a square butt weld with the .045 but the gap was > > anywhere from 1/16 to 1/8". I tried a short piece will a smaller gap too, > > but it did not penetrate as much as I would have liked. Maybe my amps > were > > too low? Anyway the 1/8" gap sort of makes sense to me because I > backgouge > > that out anyway. The results were a little worst that the double V, but > I > > was extending the weld lengths (rushing) and that might have been the > cause. > > However I think it's not too bad and that void in the center of the > > cross-section is gone. > > > > Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNPjo-32E4Y > > > > Suggestions are always welcomed > > Doug > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > I did not try the .045 wire with a square butt as it took more control > > than I have currently to keep the weld pool deep enough in the gap so I > > think for me it's going to be safer to just bevel the edges.  I've got > to > > take more time cutting straighter too because my gaps run between 0 and > > 1/8". > > > > > > That's a good suggestion you have about contacting the local welding > > school. > > >  > > > Doug > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: James Pronk > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:58 AM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > >  > > > Hey Doug > > > Have you tried leaving a gap the same as the dia. of your wire, with > and > > without the bevel? > > > You should be able to get the penatration you need on 1/4 plate with > out > > the bevel on the first side then you just need to grind out the back of > the > > weld with a thin grinding wheel and weld from that side. > > > James > > > --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Received: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 6:52 PM > > > > > >  > > > > > > Doug > > > Yes leave a 1/16" flat, It will still have a tendancy to pull one way > or > > > the other that is why you need to keep the first tacks an inch or so > long > > > spaced about a foot then do the other side. when you do the final > welding > > > after tacked the weld need to be short around 3 inches or so and spaced > > > letting it cool 100% grinding out the start and stops before doing it > > > again. Not really any fast way to do it and keep it streight, heavier > > > thicker bars tacked across would help. > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > I'll try the double V again. A photo of my fist attempt is attached, > > and I > > > > think I got too carried away with the grinding and made a blade. By > > "1/16 > > > > land" you mean the leave a 1/6" edge that is flat? If so, that makes > > sense > > > > to me because when the weld cooled it pulled one side over the other. > > And > > > > thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:15 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > > I found gapping does not work so good on butting plate together and > > keep > > > > streight . > > > > What I would try there is v from both sides with maybe 1/16 land, but > > > > together tight with no gaps, tack on the bars to keep streight then > > tack > > > > every foot or so changing direction of the welds, after it is cool > flip > > it > > > > over and do the same between the front side welds. > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > > > I've tried a double V one one but it was no better so I've been > > staying > > > > > with a square butt joint and just grinding off the little slag that > > is > > > > left > > > > > by the plasma cutter. I back gouge with a 1/8" cut off blade. > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Tom Mann > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:47 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] 1/4 inch Steel Butt Weld Distortion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > How are you preping the joint? gap or v or both > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Doug Jackson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We've been having a great time learning to butt weld 1/4" steel. > It > > > > > > keeps insisting on bending only one direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > We're using 1/16" flux core wire at 175 ipm and 275 amps. I know > > > > that's > > > > > a > > > > > > lot of heat but the Lincoln site suggested it in order to get > more > > weld > > > > > > deposited in less time and thus be done with less heat overall > > being > > > > > added > > > > > > to the plate. I do love the speed too. We use 3" flat bar for > > strong > > > > > backs > > > > > > on 16" centers. We tack the first side on 8" centers between the > > strong > > > > > > backs and it will cause it to bow upward ever so slightly. Yeah, > > > > upward; > > > > > > the book said it would distort downward. After that we start > adding > > > > > welds > > > > > > to both sides but it just keeps distorting worse in the same > > direction. > > > > > > This is cold rolled steel. Is it predisposition-ed to distort > back > > > > into > > > > > > it's coiled shape? > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going to try keeping the strong backs in place on this > next > > > > > attempt, > > > > > > but we'd welcome any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a video of the mess I made: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpfOPb6u3E > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! 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@...! 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26533|26521|2011-08-30 16:43:20|brentswain38|Re: hull longitudinals|We used to use 6mmx25mm flatbar on some of the earlier 36 footers.It was springy compared to angle, nowhere near as stiff, but had no major structural problems in the last 30 years. Going wider on the flatbar would make it too stiff. You could try make up the difference by going thicker, like about 3/8th inch thick.Thickness doesn't give as much stiffness as width. We tried 1 1/2 inch by 1 1/2 inch by 1/4 flatbar on a 40 once. They were so stiff that the ends of the angles pushed a hump in the plate. I eased this by cutting a V out of the web for about 6 inches back from the ends. On most boats I've built, we got the steel pre shot blasted and primed with a cold galvanized primer, in the suppliers shop, so paint under them was not an issue. When you bury them in epoxy, then foam, then cover them with interior, there is not much chance you would ever look under them again. I have seen Y section steel on fences. This would be the ultimate solution, if it were available in longer lengths. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Absolutely right Kim. Changing anything in the Brent Swain formula > for making his designs might well affect the the way it folds. > Moitessier's boat first steel boat was made by a boiler maker, so I > > assume it was plated after the larger parts of the frame were in. > However, after an orgami is folded, if one wanted to insert pre-curved > flat bar as added stiffeners (accepting that tacking them such stiffeners > in might change the fairness of the hull) that would be a different thing. > Did Brent ever try that ? And how did that work out ? > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:00 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matt ... > > > > I assume that when my friend told me what he thought were the equivalent flat bar dimensions to the angle, he may have been trying to compensate for, or eliminate, the twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar that you mention. > > > > However, possibly of more serious concern might be that using anything other than 25x25x5 angle might change the way the hull shape forms as the hull is pulled together. I have a vague recollection that Brent mentioned in a much earlier message that he once tried increasing the size of the angle for the stringers in his 40' design; but it subsequently adversely affected the hull shape. > > > > Anyway, it's always very interesting making these comparisons! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > For hull stiffeners, I believe one assumes that the hull is the neutral plane, so for a 25x25x5 angle is > > > > > > I = sum(b d^3 / 12 + b * d * (offset of CM)^2) = 7.7 cm ^ 4 > > > > > > I for 32mm x5mm = 5.5cm ^4 > > > > > > I for 40mm x5mm = 10.7 cm^4 > > > > > > Note, 40x5 flat bar by itself is only 2.67 cm^4, it is tacking it to the hull, causing an > > > offset in the plane of flexure that makes it stiffer. > > > > > > *BUT* > > > > > > This assumes no twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar. The side to side I of a flat bar is > > > maybe than 20 times smaller than an angle. I know Moitessier recommended flatbar for > > > exactly the reasons Noel gives. I can only imagine it was tacked in on both sides more > > > frequently, so that the hull provided twist stiffness to the flatbar so it would not buckle. Buckling > > > strength goes by 1/L^2, so putting in tacks at half the spacing makes it 4 times more resistant to > > > buckling. Making the tacks long tacks would help too. > > > > > > Matt > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: kimdxx@ > > > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > > > > > Hi Noel ... > > > > > > Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. > > > > > > Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. > > > > > > Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. > > > > > > Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. > > > > > > So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). > > > > > > However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. > > > > > > Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > > > > > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26534|26534|2011-08-30 22:17:58|GP|Salt water and bottom paint|I am on the beach and washing my hull to put on epoxy cop bottom paid. I put this stuff on 5 yrs ago and am about to paint again. I washed the hull in salt water. Is there any reason I need to rinse the hull in FRESH WATER before bottom painting with epoxy cop.... thanks... .... Gary| 26535|26535|2011-08-30 22:24:57|GP|Port McNeil / Electric powered Swain|Brent... I am on Sointula. Lyle was saying a coupla days ago he saw one of your boats that was battery powered in Port McNeil. He was really impressed but did not get a chance to talk with the owner who was just leaving the dock. Apparently the boat left under good speed. Do you know whose boat it was? Gart| 26536|26534|2011-08-31 17:14:16|brentswain38|Re: Salt water and bottom paint|I'm not sure. One would think the epoxy would soak thru a thin film of salt, but try a patch and see how it holds, before painting the works. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I am on the beach and washing my hull to put on epoxy cop bottom paid. I put this stuff on 5 yrs ago and am about to paint again. I washed the hull in salt water. Is there any reason I need to rinse the hull in FRESH WATER before bottom painting with epoxy cop.... thanks... > > .... Gary > | 26537|26535|2011-08-31 17:17:56|brentswain38|Re: Port McNeil / Electric powered Swain|That was Victor Tymoshuk's boat, the one I built in Coombs a couple of years ago, a 36 ft twin keeler. I asked him how the electric drive was working out, and he said "Too soon to say." After sailing to Victoria in the fall, for the winter, just after launching, this is basically his maiden voyage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > Brent... I am on Sointula. Lyle was saying a coupla days ago he saw one of your boats that was battery powered in Port McNeil. He was really impressed but did not get a chance to talk with the owner who was just leaving the dock. Apparently the boat left under good speed. Do you know whose boat it was? > > Gart > | 26538|26534|2011-09-01 04:11:21|Aaron|Re: Salt water and bottom paint|The chlorides in salt cause adherence failures. I have read that it is a very common issue when blasting close to the ocean. Aaron From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:14 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Salt water and bottom paint   I'm not sure. One would think the epoxy would soak thru a thin film of salt, but try a patch and see how it holds, before painting the works. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I am on the beach and washing my hull to put on epoxy cop bottom paid. I put this stuff on 5 yrs ago and am about to paint again. I washed the hull in salt water. Is there any reason I need to rinse the hull in FRESH WATER before bottom painting with epoxy cop.... thanks... > > .... Gary > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26539|26521|2011-09-01 14:23:02|mauro gonzaga|Re: hull longitudinals|If stiffness was the concern, you can form the hull as specified with the correct flat bar. Then, when other people have finished their work, you may tack weld with frequent tacks on top of the flat bars a relatively small (e.g. 3 x 20 mm) flat bar at 90 deg. angle of the existing specified bar. It will freeze the shape already obtained adding (approx.doubling) stiffness. If rust was a concern: steel brush, a simple primer and epoxy paint applied by brush, in my experience, are enough for internal protection. Sand/shot blasting inorganic zinc primer and epoxy paint applied by airless spray will last a life. Fair wind. Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:43 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals   We used to use 6mmx25mm flatbar on some of the earlier 36 footers.It was springy compared to angle, nowhere near as stiff, but had no major structural problems in the last 30 years. Going wider on the flatbar would make it too stiff. You could try make up the difference by going thicker, like about 3/8th inch thick.Thickness doesn't give as much stiffness as width. We tried 1 1/2 inch by 1 1/2 inch by 1/4 flatbar on a 40 once. They were so stiff that the ends of the angles pushed a hump in the plate. I eased this by cutting a V out of the web for about 6 inches back from the ends. On most boats I've built, we got the steel pre shot blasted and primed with a cold galvanized primer, in the suppliers shop, so paint under them was not an issue. When you bury them in epoxy, then foam, then cover them with interior, there is not much chance you would ever look under them again. I have seen Y section steel on fences. This would be the ultimate solution, if it were available in longer lengths. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Absolutely right Kim. Changing anything in the Brent Swain formula > for making his designs might well affect the the way it folds. > Moitessier's boat first steel boat was made by a boiler maker, so I > > assume it was plated after the larger parts of the frame were in. > However, after an orgami is folded, if one wanted to insert pre-curved > flat bar as added stiffeners (accepting that tacking them such stiffeners > in might change the fairness of the hull) that would be a different thing. > Did Brent ever try that ? And how did that work out ? > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:00 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matt ... > > > > I assume that when my friend told me what he thought were the equivalent flat bar dimensions to the angle, he may have been trying to compensate for, or eliminate, the twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar that you mention. > > > > However, possibly of more serious concern might be that using anything other than 25x25x5 angle might change the way the hull shape forms as the hull is pulled together. I have a vague recollection that Brent mentioned in a much earlier message that he once tried increasing the size of the angle for the stringers in his 40' design; but it subsequently adversely affected the hull shape. > > > > Anyway, it's always very interesting making these comparisons! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > For hull stiffeners, I believe one assumes that the hull is the neutral plane, so for a 25x25x5 angle is > > > > > > I = sum(b d^3 / 12 + b * d * (offset of CM)^2) = 7.7 cm ^ 4 > > > > > > I for 32mm x5mm = 5.5cm ^4 > > > > > > I for 40mm x5mm = 10.7 cm^4 > > > > > > Note, 40x5 flat bar by itself is only 2.67 cm^4, it is tacking it to the hull, causing an > > > offset in the plane of flexure that makes it stiffer. > > > > > > *BUT* > > > > > > This assumes no twist-buckling of the upper edge of the flat bar. The side to side I of a flat bar is > > > maybe than 20 times smaller than an angle. I know Moitessier recommended flatbar for > > > exactly the reasons Noel gives. I can only imagine it was tacked in on both sides more > > > frequently, so that the hull provided twist stiffness to the flatbar so it would not buckle. Buckling > > > strength goes by 1/L^2, so putting in tacks at half the spacing makes it 4 times more resistant to > > > buckling. Making the tacks long tacks would help too. > > > > > > Matt > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: kimdxx@ > > > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: hull longitudinals > > > > > > Hi Noel ... > > > > > > Before I started building my 26-footer I too was a bit concerned about the potential rust problems using angle (rather flat bar). Some of my mates with steel boats were telling me horror stories of rust with angle. > > > > > > Brent's plans call for 25x25x5 angle for the hull stringers (I think that's the size specified for all versions from the 26' to the 40'). An engineer mate of mine calculated what the the equivalent flat bar section would be (modulus of ???). Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the equivalent flat bar dimensions were; but they were a *lot* more than the 32x5 you're thinking of using. Something around 60x8 (or more) springs to mind. Maybe one of the engineers reading this group might be able to give you an accurate equivalent. > > > > > > Anyway, I figured that the danger of having unreachable rust form between the (relatively wide) 8mm face of the flat bar and the hull skin would be *much* worse than than any potential problems caused by the 25x25x5 angle. It would be nearly impossible to get paint in there. I've been told that apparently what can then happen is that any rust that forms between the two surfaces forces open any gaps a bit wider, which lets more moisture in, which causes more rust, which opens the gaps a bit wider still, and so on it goes. > > > > > > Another problem is the added weight of heavier flat bar. Another more serious issue might be that using heavier flat bar might prevent the hull plate forming the (very fair) compound curves that Brent has designed, or the hull panels might bend in a different manner as they're pulled together. > > > > > > So there really are some serious structural advantages in using the 25x25x5 angle rather than flat bar. In the old days, if you were building to survey in Queensland, you would have been forced to use angle (they wouldn't accept flat bar). > > > > > > However, a downside is that your average sandblaster nozzle will *not* be able to get behind 25x25x5 angle. So what I did was cut my 25x25x5 stringers to the required length, cut in a few small drain holes, had them thoroughly sandblasted, painted them with a welding primer, and finally welded them to the hull plate. It wont be too hard for paint to find its way between the (relatively narrow) 5mm edge of the angle and the hull skin. I don't expect to ever have any rust problems with them. > > > > > > Great to hear that you've found a place to build your boat! Hope it all goes well for you. > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "freshwaternoel" wrote: > > > > > > > i have found a yard to build and about to order steel for the hull and would like to know if ican substitute 32mmx5 flat bar instead of angle easier to keep an eye on rust i cant see the point in using angle maybe i am wrong but i dont think there is a stuctual advantage > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26540|26540|2011-09-02 14:14:13|brentswain38|Builders of the Pacific Coast|I just read the book "Builders of the Pacific Coast " by Lloyd Kahn. It show the incredible genius of people building homes on the Pacific Coast, using salvaged materials from the beach and bush, using only a box of nails and chainsaw gas as the only expenses, to build some pretty impressive homes. I have seen boat interiors done using the same methods. This book is bound to get the creative juices flowing.| 26541|26541|2011-09-07 18:15:08|brentswain38|The Bilge|I just finished doing the first maintenance on my bilge in 27 years. It was in remarkably good shape, only the occasional bit of surface rust. I ground the rusty bits with the angle grinder, and lightly ground the surface of the rest of the epoxy, for a good bite for the topcoat. I put ceramic insulating beads in the epoxy to reduce condensation. I used a lighter coloured epoxy this time so I could easily see what was rust and what was epoxy. The dark brown( or any dark colour for the bilge) was a mistake. Luckily, a few years ago I eliminated the goofy little lift panels, so common on boats, for an entire floor which lifts up, giving complete access to the bilge. It is impossible to do any kind of real maintenance thru those little lift panels.I plan to secure the floor by a full length piano hinge along one side and tie downs along the other. I eliminated the wooden floors; any wood in the bilge is a mistake. I plan to sand off any humps in the epoxy when it hardens, to make cleaning much easier. Keep it simple.| 26542|26541|2011-09-07 19:39:33|martin demers|Re: The Bilge|Brent, For what did you change the wood floor? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:15:04 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] The Bilge I just finished doing the first maintenance on my bilge in 27 years. It was in remarkably good shape, only the occasional bit of surface rust. I ground the rusty bits with the angle grinder, and lightly ground the surface of the rest of the epoxy, for a good bite for the topcoat. I put ceramic insulating beads in the epoxy to reduce condensation. I used a lighter coloured epoxy this time so I could easily see what was rust and what was epoxy. The dark brown( or any dark colour for the bilge) was a mistake. Luckily, a few years ago I eliminated the goofy little lift panels, so common on boats, for an entire floor which lifts up, giving complete access to the bilge. It is impossible to do any kind of real maintenance thru those little lift panels.I plan to secure the floor by a full length piano hinge along one side and tie downs along the other. I eliminated the wooden floors; any wood in the bilge is a mistake. I plan to sand off any humps in the epoxy when it hardens, to make cleaning much easier. Keep it simple. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26543|26541|2011-09-08 19:28:44|brentswain38|Re: The Bilge|I did go for epoxy saturated plywood, easily liftable and easily removeable, insulated on the underside to reduce bilge condensation and heat loss.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > For what did you change the wood floor? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:15:04 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] The Bilge > > > > > > > I just finished doing the first maintenance on my bilge in 27 years. It was in remarkably good shape, only the occasional bit of surface rust. > I ground the rusty bits with the angle grinder, and lightly ground the surface of the rest of the epoxy, for a good bite for the topcoat. > I put ceramic insulating beads in the epoxy to reduce condensation. I used a lighter coloured epoxy this time so I could easily see what was rust and what was epoxy. The dark brown( or any dark colour for the bilge) was a mistake. > Luckily, a few years ago I eliminated the goofy little lift panels, so common on boats, for an entire floor which lifts up, giving complete access to the bilge. It is impossible to do any kind of real maintenance thru those little lift panels.I plan to secure the floor by a full length piano hinge along one side and tie downs along the other. > I eliminated the wooden floors; any wood in the bilge is a mistake. > I plan to sand off any humps in the epoxy when it hardens, to make cleaning much easier. > Keep it simple. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26544|26544|2011-09-08 19:33:49|brentswain38|Wireless comealong|A friend just showed me a wireless comealong. Instead of a drum , it has a wheel, which looks like the top of a self tailing sheet winch. You just wrap a piece of half inch braid around it and crank away. Looks like a common cheap comealong otherwise. With this one, you dont have to worry about running out of length, you can crank as long a rope as you have thru it. Looking forward to trying one on my next boatbuilding project. If It were mine, I'd try replacing the galv bits with stainless, all except the cast parts.| 26545|26545|2011-09-09 12:26:57|wild_explorer|Basic welding questions|Finally, I found some time to take stick (SMAW)welding class... Community college provides equipment, rods & ~40-60hr of hands-on welding with 6011/6010, 7024/7018. Plus you can try cutting torch. Not bad for the cost < $200. At least it will give me an idea if I can undertake such a big project as building a boat by myself (or what to look for if hire someone). Besides safety talk which was helpful (use respirator welding SS or plate with zinc primer, use propane instead of acetylene, etc) there is no much theory is provided for a beginner (just watching couples of video). Welding done in the lab is different than is required for a boat. Students usually just burn full-length heavy rods non-stop. Interesting fact: Welding lab switched to household natural gas from acetylene for cutting (they use gas compressor to bring pressure from 1 psi to 5 psi). Most cutting work done with it. Questions: 1. Most work on a boat 36-40 ft is for 3/16 & 1/8 plate. As I understand, the gaps you need to weld is 1/8-3/16. Maximum recommended width for one pass is ~2.5*rod_size. What electrodes to use? 3/32 & 1/8? What amperage setting range (AC & DC)for size/type of electrodes? 2. Maximum recommended length of the weld and other tricks to avoid distortion? All other information will be appreciated as well ;) I found that 6011 for me is more useful to learn welding than 7024 (I started learning with 7024 first). 7024 is easier to start and provides smoother weld, but tolerates bigger range of arc's length. 6011 requires to keep arc tighter (you can see a difference if arc distance is too far/long) P.S. I was looking for the price of 6011 rod and found 3/16 6011 rod 5 Lb package for $1 on sale. It is probably to large for a boat, but OK for learning/practice http://store.weldingdepot.com/cgi/weldingdepot/6011187C.html| 26546|26545|2011-09-09 15:06:09|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Those classes sound excellent. 5lbs of steel for $1 is less than I pay for rusty scrap angle iron. When something sounds too good to be true... 3/16" 6011 is pretty thick. I find with 1/8", it is a lot easier to keep the puddle hanging. Thicker rods, I have more problem with vertical and overhead -- just tried overhead. With 1/8" overhead was easy, easier than vertical I found, and it looks just the same as flat. One thing I hate about 6011 is, it is really hard to fill holes and a lot easier to make bigger holes. For fun, I made a hole clear through a 5/16" plate -- I really had to work at it. I used the vertical position, and just kept digging, it would not happen by accident. With 1/8", it is hard for me to avoid holes. Reducing heat helps, yes, but 7018 likes to fill holes, and weld thinner metal without making holes. Right, holes.... how amateur. But with a 30/36' boat, I think it is a question of how good would I have to get to prevent all holes in thin stuff... and what does a pro do when they make a hole. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:26:55 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Basic welding questions Finally, I found some time to take stick (SMAW)welding class... Community college provides equipment, rods & ~40-60hr of hands-on welding with 6011/6010, 7024/7018. Plus you can try cutting torch. Not bad for the cost < $200. At least it will give me an idea if I can undertake such a big project as building a boat by myself (or what to look for if hire someone). Besides safety talk which was helpful (use respirator welding SS or plate with zinc primer, use propane instead of acetylene, etc) there is no much theory is provided for a beginner (just watching couples of video). Welding done in the lab is different than is required for a boat. Students usually just burn full-length heavy rods non-stop. Interesting fact: Welding lab switched to household natural gas from acetylene for cutting (they use gas compressor to bring pressure from 1 psi to 5 psi). Most cutting work done with it. Questions: 1. Most work on a boat 36-40 ft is for 3/16 & 1/8 plate. As I understand, the gaps you need to weld is 1/8-3/16. Maximum recommended width for one pass is ~2.5*rod_size. What electrodes to use? 3/32 & 1/8? What amperage setting range (AC & DC)for size/type of electrodes? 2. Maximum recommended length of the weld and other tricks to avoid distortion? All other information will be appreciated as well ;) I found that 6011 for me is more useful to learn welding than 7024 (I started learning with 7024 first). 7024 is easier to start and provides smoother weld, but tolerates bigger range of arc's length. 6011 requires to keep arc tighter (you can see a difference if arc distance is too far/long) P.S. I was looking for the price of 6011 rod and found 3/16 6011 rod 5 Lb package for $1 on sale. It is probably to large for a boat, but OK for learning/practice http://store.weldingdepot.com/cgi/weldingdepot/6011187C.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26547|26544|2011-09-09 16:10:30|scott|Re: Wireless comealong|I would stay with cable or chain unless you go to some of the more high tech lines that don't stretch. synthetic line around a torch or arc welder and hot metal sounds like a potential safety issue. I once saw someone tow a truck with 1/2 nylon braided line. It was strong enough but they wrapped it around a sharp edge under the frame that cut it. It turned loose under pressure and backlashed to the pickup that was pulling. It hit that truck's cap so hard it blew out and destroyed the back window and frame of the cap. I've never stood anywhere near a nylon or any rope that has much stretch in it while under a appreciable load since. I keep having thoughts of losing my head :) scott SK75 or SK95 dyneema dux come to mind as fairly safe material to use. They have minimal to no stretch at all in their safe load ranges. Pricy though. Well about the same price as chain maybe. downside is that they are pretty slick and don't hold knots very well. Usually you need to put eyes in the end with special eye splices. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > A friend just showed me a wireless comealong. Instead of a drum , it has a wheel, which looks like the top of a self tailing sheet winch. You just wrap a piece of half inch braid around it and crank away. Looks like a common cheap comealong otherwise. With this one, you dont have to worry about running out of length, you can crank as long a rope as you have thru it. > Looking forward to trying one on my next boatbuilding project. If It were mine, I'd try replacing the galv bits with stainless, all except the cast parts. > | 26548|26545|2011-09-09 18:02:30|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|While you are learning, you may as well be making something useful, like anchors, etc As chine welds are two square edge plates , the seem is wide open and there is no need for a gap, On other seams, grinding a 45 degree bevel on the edges eliminates the need for a gap. I use 1/8th inch rod for most of the hull and decks. 5/32 or 3/16th can be used for the chines, skeg and the keels . I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and 225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. 4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. Thats a hell of a price for 6011! Buy lots! You use about 300 lbs of rod total on a 36. 100lbs of that 3/16th would be worth buying. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Finally, I found some time to take stick (SMAW)welding class... Community college provides equipment, rods & ~40-60hr of hands-on welding with 6011/6010, 7024/7018. Plus you can try cutting torch. Not bad for the cost < $200. At least it will give me an idea if I can undertake such a big project as building a boat by myself (or what to look for if hire someone). > > Besides safety talk which was helpful (use respirator welding SS or plate with zinc primer, use propane instead of acetylene, etc) there is no much theory is provided for a beginner (just watching couples of video). > > Welding done in the lab is different than is required for a boat. Students usually just burn full-length heavy rods non-stop. > > Interesting fact: Welding lab switched to household natural gas from acetylene for cutting (they use gas compressor to bring pressure from 1 psi to 5 psi). Most cutting work done with it. > > Questions: > > 1. Most work on a boat 36-40 ft is for 3/16 & 1/8 plate. As I understand, the gaps you need to weld is 1/8-3/16. Maximum recommended width for one pass is ~2.5*rod_size. What electrodes to use? 3/32 & 1/8? What amperage setting range (AC & DC)for size/type of electrodes? > > 2. Maximum recommended length of the weld and other tricks to avoid distortion? > > All other information will be appreciated as well ;) > > I found that 6011 for me is more useful to learn welding than 7024 (I started learning with 7024 first). 7024 is easier to start and provides smoother weld, but tolerates bigger range of arc's length. 6011 requires to keep arc tighter (you can see a difference if arc distance is too far/long) > > P.S. I was looking for the price of 6011 rod and found 3/16 6011 rod 5 Lb package for $1 on sale. It is probably to large for a boat, but OK for learning/practice > > http://store.weldingdepot.com/cgi/weldingdepot/6011187C.html > | 26549|26545|2011-09-09 18:17:18|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|Origami construction drastically reduces the amount of overhead welding. 6013 is less penetrating, and thus better for filling holes. Don't weld the hull deck joint inside, just go heavier on the outside weld. When you weld 1/8th plate to 3/ 16th with 1/8th 7024, there is thicker metal in the weld than in the 1/8th plate and there is no way you can get the weld to break before the plate. Evan welds both sides, and you can see the distortion in the bow from across the harbour, sometimes. The shrinkage of the first weld simply pulls the two pieces together. With the first weld anchoring the plate, the second weld wraps the plate around the deck, causing much greater distortion. I leave things like the cabin top and back of the cabin long, and get the inside weld on before trimming the edges flush. That way the overlapping plate is there to absorb the heat, reducing the chances of burning thru. You can crank the heat down for filling holes, altho it has never been a problem for me on 1/8th inch plate. 1/16th is trickier, but I have done lot of it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Those classes sound excellent. > > 5lbs of steel for $1 is less than I pay for rusty scrap angle iron. When something sounds too good to be true... > > 3/16" 6011 is pretty thick. I find with 1/8", it is a lot easier to keep the puddle hanging. Thicker rods, I have more problem with vertical and overhead -- just tried overhead. With 1/8" overhead was easy, easier than vertical I found, and it looks just the same as flat. > > One thing I hate about 6011 is, it is really hard to fill holes and a lot easier to make bigger holes. For fun, I made a hole clear through a 5/16" plate -- I really had to work at it. I used the vertical position, and just kept digging, it would not happen by accident. With 1/8", it is hard for me to avoid holes. Reducing heat helps, yes, but 7018 likes to fill holes, and weld thinner metal without making holes. > > Right, holes.... how amateur. But with a 30/36' boat, I think it is a question of how good would I have to get to prevent all holes in thin stuff... and what does a pro do when they make a hole. > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:26:55 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, I found some time to take stick (SMAW)welding class... Community college provides equipment, rods & ~40-60hr of hands-on welding with 6011/6010, 7024/7018. Plus you can try cutting torch. Not bad for the cost < $200. At least it will give me an idea if I can undertake such a big project as building a boat by myself (or what to look for if hire someone). > > > > Besides safety talk which was helpful (use respirator welding SS or plate with zinc primer, use propane instead of acetylene, etc) there is no much theory is provided for a beginner (just watching couples of video). > > > > Welding done in the lab is different than is required for a boat. Students usually just burn full-length heavy rods non-stop. > > > > Interesting fact: Welding lab switched to household natural gas from acetylene for cutting (they use gas compressor to bring pressure from 1 psi to 5 psi). Most cutting work done with it. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Most work on a boat 36-40 ft is for 3/16 & 1/8 plate. As I understand, the gaps you need to weld is 1/8-3/16. Maximum recommended width for one pass is ~2.5*rod_size. What electrodes to use? 3/32 & 1/8? What amperage setting range (AC & DC)for size/type of electrodes? > > > > 2. Maximum recommended length of the weld and other tricks to avoid distortion? > > > > All other information will be appreciated as well ;) > > > > I found that 6011 for me is more useful to learn welding than 7024 (I started learning with 7024 first). 7024 is easier to start and provides smoother weld, but tolerates bigger range of arc's length. 6011 requires to keep arc tighter (you can see a difference if arc distance is too far/long) > > > > P.S. I was looking for the price of 6011 rod and found 3/16 6011 rod 5 Lb package for $1 on sale. It is probably to large for a boat, but OK for learning/practice > > > > http://store.weldingdepot.com/cgi/weldingdepot/6011187C.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26550|26544|2011-09-09 18:20:05|brentswain38|Re: Wireless comealong|Polyester has very little stretch. You do have to be very careful with heat and sharp corners. Using a hook or shackles on the end reduces this problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I would stay with cable or chain unless you go to some of the more high tech lines that don't stretch. synthetic line around a torch or arc welder and hot metal sounds like a potential safety issue. I once saw someone tow a truck with 1/2 nylon braided line. It was strong enough but they wrapped it around a sharp edge under the frame that cut it. It turned loose under pressure and backlashed to the pickup that was pulling. It hit that truck's cap so hard it blew out and destroyed the back window and frame of the cap. I've never stood anywhere near a nylon or any rope that has much stretch in it while under a appreciable load since. > > I keep having thoughts of losing my head :) > scott > > SK75 or SK95 dyneema dux come to mind as fairly safe material to use. They have minimal to no stretch at all in their safe load ranges. Pricy though. Well about the same price as chain maybe. downside is that they are pretty slick and don't hold knots very well. Usually you need to put eyes in the end with special eye splices. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > A friend just showed me a wireless comealong. Instead of a drum , it has a wheel, which looks like the top of a self tailing sheet winch. You just wrap a piece of half inch braid around it and crank away. Looks like a common cheap comealong otherwise. With this one, you dont have to worry about running out of length, you can crank as long a rope as you have thru it. > > Looking forward to trying one on my next boatbuilding project. If It were mine, I'd try replacing the galv bits with stainless, all except the cast parts. > > > | 26551|26544|2011-09-09 19:25:34|David Frantz|Re: Wireless comealong|Any cable or chain under tension has potential to do damage. I once worked with a guy with some rigging experience that insisted on wire rope or even other ropes over chain. His theory was that you get a warning of failure. That is probably true but instant failure can happen with cable as quickly as it can happen with chain. In the end you need to know what you are doing and have respect for the energy required to stretch such cables. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2011, at 4:10 PM, scott wrote: > I would stay with cable or chain unless you go to some of the more high tech lines that don't stretch. synthetic line around a torch or arc welder and hot metal sounds like a potential safety issue. I once saw someone tow a truck with 1/2 nylon braided line. It was strong enough but they wrapped it around a sharp edge under the frame that cut it. It turned loose under pressure and backlashed to the pickup that was pulling. It hit that truck's cap so hard it blew out and destroyed the back window and frame of the cap. I've never stood anywhere near a nylon or any rope that has much stretch in it while under a appreciable load since. > > I keep having thoughts of losing my head :) > scott > > SK75 or SK95 dyneema dux come to mind as fairly safe material to use. They have minimal to no stretch at all in their safe load ranges. Pricy though. Well about the same price as chain maybe. downside is that they are pretty slick and don't hold knots very well. Usually you need to put eyes in the end with special eye splices. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> A friend just showed me a wireless comealong. Instead of a drum , it has a wheel, which looks like the top of a self tailing sheet winch. You just wrap a piece of half inch braid around it and crank away. Looks like a common cheap comealong otherwise. With this one, you dont have to worry about running out of length, you can crank as long a rope as you have thru it. >> Looking forward to trying one on my next boatbuilding project. If It were mine, I'd try replacing the galv bits with stainless, all except the cast parts. >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26552|26540|2011-09-09 19:46:15|aaron riis|Re: Builders of the Pacific Coast|Great book, too bad that the author never made it to Haida Gwaii.   From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 11:14:11 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Builders of the Pacific Coast   I just read the book "Builders of the Pacific Coast " by Lloyd Kahn. It show the incredible genius of people building homes on the Pacific Coast, using salvaged materials from the beach and bush, using only a box of nails and chainsaw gas as the only expenses, to build some pretty impressive homes. I have seen boat interiors done using the same methods. This book is bound to get the creative juices flowing. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26553|26545|2011-09-09 23:05:01|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Brent, is this amperage for AC or DC welder? I was trying to find some specs (amperage range) for electrodes, but found only this one so far (might depend on the brand). Pages 36-38. http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_StickElectrodes-MildandLowAlloySteels-Jetweld-Jetweld2/c2410.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and 225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. > 4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. | 26554|26545|2011-09-09 23:24:56|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|First, if one has a brand-new machine with some sort of ammeter built into it, then maybe the amps scale is accurate. Mine is a variable core transformer with a spring pulling on a metal tape, and the tape is painted red for a certain fraction of its length. One looks through a slot in the front panel at the metal tape, and where the red starts matches up to a scale printed on either side of the slot. I am not very confident that what is says on the scale is how many amps I am getting. I would be equally dubious about other older welders. I use 110-130 Amps AC with 1/8" 6011. I use 130 Amps only when I am trying to hammer good penetration into thick steel. But tomorrow morning, I am going to try 90 Amps again, like Brent uses, see how it works for me. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:04:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Brent, is this amperage for AC or DC welder? I was trying to find some specs (amperage range) for electrodes, but found only this one so far (might depend on the brand). Pages 36-38. http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_StickElectrodes-MildandLowAlloySteels-Jetweld-Jetweld2/c2410.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and 225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. > 4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26555|26545|2011-09-10 17:24:48|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|That was AC, 7024 doesn't like DC, altho 90 amps DC works for 1/8th 6011. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Brent, is this amperage for AC or DC welder? > > I was trying to find some specs (amperage range) for electrodes, but found only this one so far (might depend on the brand). Pages 36-38. > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_StickElectrodes-MildandLowAlloySteels-Jetweld-Jetweld2/c2410.pdf > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and 225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. > > 4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. > | 26556|26545|2011-09-10 19:15:08|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Basic welding questions|Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. Repeatability is a much more important. So if your indicator or amp meter allows you to get back the best settings in one try, then it is plenty good enough. The current required is mostly a function of how skilled a welder you are. A skilled welder will prefer to run hot, depositing more metal quickly, and getting very good penetration. When you get to a poor fit up that isn't very long you jut weld intermittently until you get past it. Holes are filled by working quickly, and welding intermittently. Too much heat in a small area and the weld sags out on you. Steel is easy, you can judge the weld temperature by the brightness of the puddle, and there is a fairly broad range before you get a hole. Beginners just don't recognize that. So the pro welder is not only faster than you, but he gets less distortion because he is fast too. Try Tig welding aluminum. There is no color change or brightness change. One second you have a weld puddle, the next you have a hole! I had a guy want to do his own welding on some aluminum tree stands he was building. He did oaky for a bit then burned a hole, which got bigger and bigger. He asked me if I thought I could fill it, and I said I would try. He was still putting his helmet down to watch when I finished. He asked what I did to fill it so fast. I told him that was the secret, work real fast! When I first learned to Tig weld I had a Tig attachment on a stick welder, so no current control by foot pedal. I found that if I set the current correctly for making a nice bead that it took me forever to get the puddle started on a cold part. The whole part got really hot too before the puddle temperature was finally right. So I learned to turn the current way up for a fast start, then weld faster and faster, dipping the filler wire in quickly to cool the weld. I hired a guy to do some welding for me, but it was taking him 20 minutes to weld each part with the current set down low, and all his parts were badly distorted. I wound up welding them myself in about 2 minutes flat, and very little distortion. Position has a lot to do with the correct current setting too. Welding on the flat you can crank up the current and weld quickly. That produces LESS distortion than low current, not more. Welding slowly allows the heat time to spread out into the surrounding metal expanding it more. Then when the puddle cools and everything shrinks a greater distance the distortion is much larger. This why the auto companies use laser and plasma welding when they can, small Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and very little distortion. Welding vertically you need to keep the puddle freezing quickly. The travel speed is much lower, hence more energy per inch of weld puddle melted, so you want often want quite a bit less current. Unless I am welding a long vertical seam though, I leave the current the same and weld intermittently. You want to pull the stick away quickly, extinguishing the arc and cooling the puddle, but restart before the rod cools down which causes it to stick instead of reigniting. On a really bad fit up I sometimes weld with two rods at the same time! I pound the flux off of one, and put the other in the stinger. Then I start the arc and control the puddle temperature by dipping the cold un-fluxed rod into the puddle depositing more metal and cooling it so it doesn't sag. This works great for filling holes quickly too, because you can weld continuously, and still have great control over puddle temperature and sag. I once did a really bad fit up on 1/4" plate welded tangent to a 1-1/2" pipe handrail on the side. The gap was 1/4 inch! I welded that gap in one pass using two rods and the bead looked very nice, but wide. By the way, don't ask me to show you how to do any welding. I haven't welded but a couple of times in the past 15 years, my eyesight is poor, and I have arthritis in my hands that makes them stiff. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Matt Malone Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:22 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions First, if one has a brand-new machine with some sort of ammeter built into it, then maybe the amps scale is accurate. Mine is a variable core transformer with a spring pulling on a metal tape, and the tape is painted red for a certain fraction of its length. One looks through a slot in the front panel at the metal tape, and where the red starts matches up to a scale printed on either side of the slot. I am not very confident that what is says on the scale is how many amps I am getting. I would be equally dubious about other older welders. I use 110-130 Amps AC with 1/8" 6011. I use 130 Amps only when I am trying to hammer good penetration into thick steel. But tomorrow morning, I am going to try 90 Amps again, like Brent uses, see how it works for me. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:04:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Brent, is this amperage for AC or DC welder? I was trying to find some specs (amperage range) for electrodes, but found only this one so far (might depend on the brand). Pages 36-38. http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_StickElectrodes-MildandLowAlloySteels-Jetweld-Jetweld2/c2410.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and 225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. > 4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. [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 Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/| 26557|26545|2011-09-10 20:31:43|Paul Wilson|Re: Basic welding questions|Gary, I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds had no strength. Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. Cheers, Paul On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. > Repeatability is a much more important. | 26558|26545|2011-09-10 21:51:02|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Basic welding questions|Paul, I don't really know if an inverter welder would be better, but I suspect it could be. That's because an inverter welder is able to control both voltage and current at the same time. Also the better ones have a very wide input voltage rating, typically like 190 to 260 volts 50/60 cycle. So as long as the total needed power (volts x amps) is available the inverter welder should be able to put out a fairly stable arc. Maybe you could rent one for a day to test out the theory. Long extension cords are a big problem for welders. I used to be an electrical contractor, and often welded at job sites. We would use aluminum aerial cable for temporary wiring. As wire goes it is really cheap. You can buy 3 conductor cable where the aluminum messenger wire with a center steel strand is the bare ground wire, and the two aluminum insulated conductors have a cross linked polyethylene insulation that is very tough. There is no jacket. You can get it in sizes from #6 up. Aluminum is a little less conductive than copper, so you need a size larger but the cost is so much cheaper it doesn't matter. It is light too. A 100 or 200 foot coil can be easily handled by one person. We just pigtail a short smaller cable on either end for the male and female cord ends. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:31 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Gary, I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds had no strength. Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. Cheers, Paul On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. > Repeatability is a much more important. ------------------------------------ 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 Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ | 26559|26545|2011-09-10 22:17:12|Paul Thompson|Re: Basic welding questions|Paul, For what it's worth, I bought a Thermal Arc 130amp DC Inverter welder in 1999 and have been using it for all my stick welding and the odd lift Tig job ever since. It cost a fortune at the time (just under US$2000.00) but it has proven to be utterly reliable and it welds beautifully no matter what rod I use. It also does not seem to care about voltage being able to weld with anything from 110V to 240V. At the low end, maxim current is reduced to 100amps but the arc is still strong and stable. I do not know if all inverter welders (especially the cheap Chinese ones) are as good as this but I very much doubt that you would have any complaints about this one. Should you ever come up to Auckland, you'd be most welcome to come round to my workshop and try it out for yourself. I think I'd enjoy a beer (or two) and a gam with you afterwards :-). -- Regards, Paul Thompson On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Gary, > > I really appreciate your welding posts.   The emails you have written > about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I > attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds > had no strength. > > Anyway, I am curious if  you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc > welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies > than your typical AC transformer welder.  I have a small single phase AC > welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far > too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking.  If I > knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: >> Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. >> Repeatability is a much more important. > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 26560|26545|2011-09-10 22:47:52|Paul Wilson|Re: Basic welding questions|Paul and Gary, Thanks a lot, good info. I think I have sworn at my old welder long enough and will bite the bullet and get an inverter one. Paul, I come to Auckland once in awhile but it is usually a whirlwind trip on they way to somewhere else. I will keep a visit in mind. Cheers, Paul. On 11/09/2011 2:17 p.m., Paul Thompson wrote: > > Paul, > > For what it's worth, I bought a Thermal Arc 130amp DC Inverter welder > in 1999 and have been using it for all my stick welding and the odd > lift Tig job ever since. It cost a fortune at the time (just under > US$2000.00) but it has proven to be utterly reliable and it welds > beautifully no matter what rod I use. It also does not seem to care > about voltage being able to weld with anything from 110V to 240V. At > the low end, maxim current is reduced to 100amps but the arc is still > strong and stable. I do not know if all inverter welders (especially > the cheap Chinese ones) are as good as this but I very much doubt that > you would have any complaints about this one. > > Should you ever come up to Auckland, you'd be most welcome to come > round to my workshop and try it out for yourself. I think I'd enjoy a > beer (or two) and a gam with you afterwards :-). > -- > Regards, > > Paul Thompson > > | 26561|26545|2011-09-11 06:01:19|Kim|Re: Basic welding questions|Hi Paul ... My boat is a long way from the closest power source, and the (Chinese-made) DC inverter welder I'm using is always connected to a 20 meter standard extension cord (it's almost about 3/8" OD). That extension cord, in turn, is plugged in to a somewhat heavier 70 meter extension cord that's a bit thicker (about 1/2" OD) than a standard extension cord. The 70 meter cord is plugged in to an ordinary 10 amp 240 volt household power outlet. I must be experiencing some losses over that length; but the DC inverter welder I'm using doesn't seem to care at all. I've experimented using it at home without any extension cords, and the performance seems exactly the same to me. Hope this helps! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Gary, > > I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written > about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I > attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds > had no strength. > > Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc > welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies > than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC > welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far > too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I > knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. > > Cheers, Paul | 26562|26545|2011-09-11 11:22:30|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questions|Gary Exilent example of how to get er done. Aaron   From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. Repeatability is a much more important.  So if your indicator or amp meter allows you to get back the best settings in one try, then it is plenty good enough.  The current required is mostly a function of how skilled a welder you are.  A skilled welder will prefer to run hot, depositing more metal quickly, and getting very good penetration.  When you get to a poor fit up that isn't very long you jut weld intermittently until you get past it. Holes are filled by working quickly, and welding intermittently.  Too much heat in a small area and the weld sags out on you.  Steel is easy, you can judge the weld temperature by the brightness of the puddle, and there is a fairly broad range before you get a hole.  Beginners just don't recognize that.  So the pro welder is not only faster than you, but he gets less distortion because he is fast too. Try Tig welding aluminum.  There is no color change or brightness change. One second you have a weld puddle, the next you have a hole!  I had a guy want to do his own welding on some aluminum tree stands he was building.  He did oaky for a bit then burned a hole, which got bigger and bigger.  He asked me if I thought I could fill it, and I said I would try.  He was still putting his helmet down to watch when I finished.  He asked what I did to fill it so fast.  I told him that was the secret, work real fast!  When I first learned to Tig weld I had a Tig attachment on a stick welder, so no current control by foot pedal.  I found that if I set the current correctly for making a nice bead that it took me forever to get the puddle started on a cold part.  The whole part got really hot too before the puddle temperature was finally right.  So I learned to turn the current way up for a fast start, then weld faster and faster, dipping the filler wire in quickly to cool the weld.  I hired a guy to do some welding for me, but it was taking him 20 minutes to weld each part with the current set down low, and all his parts were badly distorted.  I wound up welding them myself in about 2 minutes flat, and very little distortion. Position has a lot to do with the correct current setting too.  Welding on the flat you can crank up the current and weld quickly.  That produces LESS distortion than low current, not more.  Welding slowly allows the heat time to spread out into the surrounding metal expanding it more.  Then when the puddle cools and everything shrinks a greater distance the distortion is much larger.  This why the auto companies use laser and plasma welding when they can, small Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and very little distortion. Welding vertically you need to keep the puddle freezing quickly.  The travel speed is much lower, hence more energy per inch of weld puddle melted, so you want often want quite a bit less current.  Unless I am welding a long vertical seam though, I leave the current the same and weld intermittently. You want to pull the stick away quickly, extinguishing the arc and cooling the puddle, but restart before the rod cools down which causes it to stick instead of reigniting.  On a really bad fit up I sometimes weld with two rods at the same time!  I pound the flux off of one, and put the other in the stinger.  Then I start the arc and control the puddle temperature by dipping the cold un-fluxed rod into the puddle depositing more metal and cooling it so it doesn't sag.  This works great for filling holes quickly too, because you can weld continuously, and still have great control over puddle temperature and sag.  I once did a really bad fit up on 1/4" plate welded tangent to a 1-1/2" pipe handrail on the side. The gap was 1/4 inch! I welded that gap in one pass using two rods and the bead looked very nice, but wide. By the way, don't ask me to show you how to do any welding.  I haven't welded but a couple of times in the past 15 years, my eyesight is poor, and I have arthritis in my hands that makes them stiff. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Matt Malone Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:22 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions First, if one has a brand-new machine with some sort of ammeter built into it, then maybe the amps scale is accurate.  Mine is a variable core transformer with a spring pulling on a metal tape, and the tape is painted red for a certain fraction of its length.  One looks through a slot in the front panel at the metal tape, and where the red starts matches up to a scale printed on either side of the slot. I am not very confident that what is says on the scale is how many amps I am getting.  I would be equally dubious about other older welders. I use 110-130 Amps AC with 1/8" 6011.  I use 130 Amps only when I am trying to hammer good penetration into thick steel.  But tomorrow morning, I am going to try 90 Amps again, like Brent uses, see how it works for me. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:04:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions       Brent, is this amperage for AC or DC welder? I was trying to find some specs (amperage range) for electrodes, but found only this one so far (might depend on the brand). Pages 36-38. http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/Consumable_StickElectrodes-MildandLowAlloySteels-Jetweld-Jetweld2/c2410.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use about 90 amps for the 1/8th 6011 and  225 amps for the 1/8th 7024. >  4 to 6 inch is max for hull welds and hull- deck welds. [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 Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------ 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]| 26563|26545|2011-09-11 11:36:06|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions|You are likely getting away with that due to the inverter nature of the welder and the fact you are starting out at 240 VAC. However that doesn't mean you are running under ideal conditions. First off the diameter of the extension cord really means nothing in this context, rather the diameter of the conductors is what is important. That is why extension cords, at least in the US, must be stamped with wire size. Even an inverter based welder will be impacted by line impedance to some extent. So in cases like this, that is long cable runs, it is often beneficial to use heavier cords than the current may imply. This simply to reduce voltage drop. The advantage of inverter based welders here is that they often are designed for a very wide range of voltage inputs. So when you start out with 240 VAC you still are within optimal range at the end of all of those cords. Somebody in the states that might try that on a 120 VAC outlet will likely have a different result. Usually what happens at lower voltages is that the inverter starts to limit it's operation to lower currents, it may work well but you won't get the higher heat settings. In any event back to the original posters question, yes an inverter type welder MIGHT help. I say might because it does depend upon things that are location and welder dependent. Some welders allow for a lower AC voltage in than others for example. Second starting out at a higher source voltage puts you at an advantage, a 240 VAC source is still recommended. Sent from my iPad On Sep 11, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Kim wrote: > > Hi Paul ... > > My boat is a long way from the closest power source, and the (Chinese-made) DC inverter welder I'm using is always connected to a 20 meter standard extension cord (it's almost about 3/8" OD). That extension cord, in turn, is plugged in to a somewhat heavier 70 meter extension cord that's a bit thicker (about 1/2" OD) than a standard extension cord. The 70 meter cord is plugged in to an ordinary 10 amp 240 volt household power outlet. > > I must be experiencing some losses over that length; but the DC inverter welder I'm using doesn't seem to care at all. I've experimented using it at home without any extension cords, and the performance seems exactly the same to me. > > Hope this helps! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >> Gary, >> >> I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written >> about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I >> attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds >> had no strength. >> >> Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc >> welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies >> than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC >> welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far >> too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I >> knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. >> >> 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 > > > | 26564|26545|2011-09-11 11:48:18|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions|I think you hit upon the basic issue here, inverters will work well if the power is available. The nasty here is voltage drop in poorly selected extension cords which may place even an inverter welder outside it's optimal operating point. As to AC in voltages; these days welders are often capable of running with a very wide voltage input ratio. The thing to watch out for is reduced capability at the lower end of that range. It still makes a difference what type of inverter welder is selected. Just because it is an inverter doesn't mean it will work under the conditions of use. One needs to read the manufactures data sheet to understand what a specific welder can do and what it's requirements are. Sent from my iPad On Sep 10, 2011, at 9:50 PM, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > Paul, > I don't really know if an inverter welder would be better, but I suspect it > could be. That's because an inverter welder is able to control both voltage > and current at the same time. Also the better ones have a very wide input > voltage rating, typically like 190 to 260 volts 50/60 cycle. So as long as > the total needed power (volts x amps) is available the inverter welder > should be able to put out a fairly stable arc. Maybe you could rent one for > a day to test out the theory. Long extension cords are a big problem for > welders. I used to be an electrical contractor, and often welded at job > sites. We would use aluminum aerial cable for temporary wiring. As wire > goes it is really cheap. You can buy 3 conductor cable where the aluminum > messenger wire with a center steel strand is the bare ground wire, and the > two aluminum insulated conductors have a cross linked polyethylene > insulation that is very tough. There is no jacket. You can get it in sizes > from #6 up. Aluminum is a little less conductive than copper, so you need a > size larger but the cost is so much cheaper it doesn't matter. It is light > too. A 100 or 200 foot coil can be easily handled by one person. We just > pigtail a short smaller cable on either end for the male and female cord > ends. > > Gary H. Lucas > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:31 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Gary, > > I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written > about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I > attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds > had no strength. > > Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc > welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies > than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC > welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far > too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I > knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: >> Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. >> Repeatability is a much more important. > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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 > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26565|26545|2011-09-12 12:41:44|Darren Bos|Re: Basic welding questions|I'll second Paul's good words for Thermal Arc. I've had a Thermal arc TSW185 for about five years. I got it because my garage is about 150' from the house and is only serviced with 10ga wire. However, the inverter machines use so much less power for the same output current that I haven't needed to upgrade the wiring for the garage. Buying the inverter welder was way cheaper than buying and installing heavier gauge wire to the garage. Anyway, even though the wiring to the garage is far from ideal the Thermal Arc has been rock solid, I've never had a problem or error code, nor have I ever thrown a household breaker. Darren At 07:17 PM 10/09/2011, you wrote: > > >Paul, > >For what it's worth, I bought a Thermal Arc 130amp DC Inverter welder >in 1999 and have been using it for all my stick welding and the odd >lift Tig job ever since. It cost a fortune at the time (just under >US$2000.00) but it has proven to be utterly reliable and it welds >beautifully no matter what rod I use. It also does not seem to care >about voltage being able to weld with anything from 110V to 240V. At >the low end, maxim current is reduced to 100amps but the arc is still >strong and stable. I do not know if all inverter welders (especially >the cheap Chinese ones) are as good as this but I very much doubt that >you would have any complaints about this one. > >Should you ever come up to Auckland, you'd be most welcome to come >round to my workshop and try it out for yourself. I think I'd enjoy a >beer (or two) and a gam with you afterwards :-). >-- >Regards, > >Paul Thompson > >On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Paul Wilson ><opusnz@...> wrote: > > Gary, > > > > I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written > > about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I > > attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds > > had no strength. > > > > Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc > > welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies > > than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC > > welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far > > too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I > > knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: > >> Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. > >> Repeatability is a much more important. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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]| 26566|26545|2011-09-12 13:59:53|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Because of lack of theory in the class, I started to look for some information for a beginner. This one looks pretty useful: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/Documents/SMAWFacilitatorGuide.pdf There are some PowerPoint presentations here too: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/training-materials/Pages/training-materials.aspx Does someone has more links for a beginner?| 26567|26545|2011-09-12 16:45:30|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Re. Tips for the beginner... I find welding is such a dynamic process, that only video or observing someone else do it shows it well. With video, the photography is frequently poor, often completely whited-out during welding, so, you can't see what they are doing. If you can't see what they are doing, why bother shooting a video ? My last complaint about video is, they have pros show how to do it right. How about video of all the wrong ways, and the results in the behaviour of the puddle, slag, or final result. I find the tips here at least as good as I have found anywhere. Thank you to Gary in particular for his detailed posts. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:49 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Because of lack of theory in the class, I started to look for some information for a beginner. This one looks pretty useful: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/Documents/SMAWFacilitatorGuide.pdf There are some PowerPoint presentations here too: http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/training-materials/Pages/training-materials.aspx Does someone has more links for a beginner? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26568|26545|2011-09-12 20:45:14|Ben Okopnik|Re: Basic welding questions|On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:59:49PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Because of lack of theory in the class, I started to look for some information for a beginner. This one looks pretty useful: > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/Documents/SMAWFacilitatorGuide.pdf > > There are some PowerPoint presentations here too: > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/education-center/training-materials/Pages/training-materials.aspx > > Does someone has more links for a beginner? Lincoln has a series of books - all of them dirt-cheap, like 1950s prices - about every aspect of welding, including a bunch of projects for beginners. I used to have most of them, passed them on to someone else, and every one of them was a real treasure: clearly written, in that old-time instruction manual style, and full of excellent tips that clearly came from experienced old-timers. I particularly recall "New Lessons in Arc Welding", "How To Read Shop Drawings", and "Principles of Industrial Welding", but all of them were truly excellent. https://ssl.lincolnelectric.com/lincoln/apdirect/store.asp?PID=16&cat=8 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| 26569|26545|2011-09-13 17:57:50|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|Tried an inverter welder a couple of years ago. Worked well, and the light, compact size of them made locating them right next to the job very easy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > I think you hit upon the basic issue here, inverters will work well if the power is available. The nasty here is voltage drop in poorly selected extension cords which may place even an inverter welder outside it's optimal operating point. > > As to AC in voltages; these days welders are often capable of running with a very wide voltage input ratio. The thing to watch out for is reduced capability at the lower end of that range. It still makes a difference what type of inverter welder is selected. Just because it is an inverter doesn't mean it will work under the conditions of use. One needs to read the manufactures data sheet to understand what a specific welder can do and what it's requirements are. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 10, 2011, at 9:50 PM, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > Paul, > > I don't really know if an inverter welder would be better, but I suspect it > > could be. That's because an inverter welder is able to control both voltage > > and current at the same time. Also the better ones have a very wide input > > voltage rating, typically like 190 to 260 volts 50/60 cycle. So as long as > > the total needed power (volts x amps) is available the inverter welder > > should be able to put out a fairly stable arc. Maybe you could rent one for > > a day to test out the theory. Long extension cords are a big problem for > > welders. I used to be an electrical contractor, and often welded at job > > sites. We would use aluminum aerial cable for temporary wiring. As wire > > goes it is really cheap. You can buy 3 conductor cable where the aluminum > > messenger wire with a center steel strand is the bare ground wire, and the > > two aluminum insulated conductors have a cross linked polyethylene > > insulation that is very tough. There is no jacket. You can get it in sizes > > from #6 up. Aluminum is a little less conductive than copper, so you need a > > size larger but the cost is so much cheaper it doesn't matter. It is light > > too. A 100 or 200 foot coil can be easily handled by one person. We just > > pigtail a short smaller cable on either end for the male and female cord > > ends. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Wilson > > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 8:31 PM > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > Gary, > > > > I really appreciate your welding posts. The emails you have written > > about MIG welding aluminum have set me right in a welding class I > > attended when the instructor couldn't understand why good looking welds > > had no strength. > > > > Anyway, I am curious if you or anyone else know if an inverter-type arc > > welder is more tolerant of long extension cords and poor power supplies > > than your typical AC transformer welder. I have a small single phase AC > > welder I use for small jobs at home and at the boat yard and it is far > > too sensitive to bad power and fluctuating voltages for my liking. If I > > knew the inverter types were better, I would buy one. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 11/09/2011 11:15 a.m., Gary H. Lucas wrote: > >> Indicators or amp meters seldom need to be accurate for most things. > >> Repeatability is a much more important. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 26570|26545|2011-09-14 16:16:14|Trisailing|Re: Basic welding questions|You might find this guy very helpful. http://www.weldingtipsandtricks.com/ I TIG weld and he has very good videos and tips. Trisailing ____________________________________________________________ Send your photos by email in seconds... TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3 Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.| 26571|26544|2011-09-14 16:22:22|brentswain38|Re: Wireless comealong|While I don't think the wireless comealongs will replace wire ones, having one on the site would be handy. If one used a hook on one end with a foot or so of chain , cutting thru would be less likely. In many spots, where the ability to make a long pull without having to get a second take , would be handy. For pulling the hull together, renting a good chain comealong from the rental place for a day or two would be well worthwhile. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Any cable or chain under tension has potential to do damage. I once worked with a guy with some rigging experience that insisted on wire rope or even other ropes over chain. His theory was that you get a warning of failure. That is probably true but instant failure can happen with cable as quickly as it can happen with chain. > > In the end you need to know what you are doing and have respect for the energy required to stretch such cables. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 9, 2011, at 4:10 PM, scott wrote: > > > I would stay with cable or chain unless you go to some of the more high tech lines that don't stretch. synthetic line around a torch or arc welder and hot metal sounds like a potential safety issue. I once saw someone tow a truck with 1/2 nylon braided line. It was strong enough but they wrapped it around a sharp edge under the frame that cut it. It turned loose under pressure and backlashed to the pickup that was pulling. It hit that truck's cap so hard it blew out and destroyed the back window and frame of the cap. I've never stood anywhere near a nylon or any rope that has much stretch in it while under a appreciable load since. > > > > I keep having thoughts of losing my head :) > > scott > > > > SK75 or SK95 dyneema dux come to mind as fairly safe material to use. They have minimal to no stretch at all in their safe load ranges. Pricy though. Well about the same price as chain maybe. downside is that they are pretty slick and don't hold knots very well. Usually you need to put eyes in the end with special eye splices. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > >> > >> A friend just showed me a wireless comealong. Instead of a drum , it has a wheel, which looks like the top of a self tailing sheet winch. You just wrap a piece of half inch braid around it and crank away. Looks like a common cheap comealong otherwise. With this one, you dont have to worry about running out of length, you can crank as long a rope as you have thru it. > >> Looking forward to trying one on my next boatbuilding project. If It were mine, I'd try replacing the galv bits with stainless, all except the cast parts. > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 26572|26545|2011-09-14 21:58:40|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Basic welding questions|That guy is real good welder, and the video was well done. One thing you can see, but he didn’t mention. Watch the position of his filler wire. You need to keep it just outside the arc at all times, but you want it inside the shielding gas envelope while it is hot, and you want it kept warm so when you dip it isn’t cold, or it may freeze in the puddle. I love the way Tig welds, you have so much control over the process like no other kind of manual welding. I really liked his finger shield. My first Tig machine had an air cooled torch. Welding aluminum I had to wear a cotton glove inside my leather glove, and then hold the handle near the cable exit instead of up by the cup. Two interesting examples: I wired a machine that made copper sheathed wave guide for satellite and cell phone towers. It had an automatic Tig welder that welded the copper sheath into a tube at 400 feet of weld per minute, in lengths well over 5000 feet! I used to weld aluminum irrigation pipe fittings on occasion. We had a guy come in and teach us how to do the welds using the company’s end fittings. The aluminum tube had a 1/16” wall. This guy could weld a 6” fitting on in 59 seconds flat, time after time! The welding machine was running 280 amps. My best time was closer to 2 minutes after lots of practice. Not bad when you consider that before he arrived we were taking about 6 minutes. Gary H. Lucas From: Trisailing Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:27 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions You might find this guy very helpful. http://www.weldingtipsandtricks.com/ I TIG weld and he has very good videos and tips. Trisailing __________________________________________________________ Send your photos by email in seconds... TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3 Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks. Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26573|26573|2011-09-15 19:52:07|Doug Jackson|A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Hope you enjoy it as much a we did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDmnHJaVR8 The rest of the trip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwYwzcnXb0 Doug SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26574|26573|2011-09-15 22:01:13|Matt Malone|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Very interesting video. I love the commentary Doug. I love all the stainless steel. I think the rear anchor receiver is a really good idea. It is a huge project. Looking out at the 18 foot by 6 foot steel cradle I am currently welding up in the driveway, to replace the oak and maple timbers currently under my boat, I am thinking Paul's boat would take me a very long time to build. On the bright side, it would not need a cradle. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:52:06 -0700 Subject: [origamiboats] A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat. Hope you enjoy it as much a we did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDmnHJaVR8 The rest of the trip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwYwzcnXb0 Doug SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26575|26573|2011-09-16 14:28:30|Ben Okopnik|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:06PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hope you enjoy it as much a we did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDmnHJaVR8 > > The rest of the trip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwYwzcnXb0 Terrific videos, Doug - really enjoyed them. Thanks! Good that you guys were able to get hold of that Hundestad rig at a reasonable cost ($55k original price??? Holy Moly...) Lots of benefits to using one of 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| 26576|26573|2011-09-16 15:08:50|Doug Jackson|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Glad you liked them Ben.  And it was actually $65K new. It really seems odd to me that there are so many of these in use in Scandinavia and almost unknown in the Americas. I can only guess that it's a difference in fuel prices.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:52:06PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hope you enjoy it as much a we did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDmnHJaVR8 > > The rest of the trip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwYwzcnXb0 Terrific videos, Doug - really enjoyed them. Thanks! Good that you guys were able to get hold of that Hundestad rig at a reasonable cost ($55k original price??? Holy Moly...) Lots of benefits to using one of 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 26577|26573|2011-09-16 15:46:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:48PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Glad you liked them Ben.  And it was actually $65K new. It really > seems odd to me that there are so many of these in use in Scandinavia > and almost unknown in the Americas. I can only guess that it's a > difference in fuel prices. I was originally introduced to variable-pitch props by George Buehler, when I was thinking about building one of his designs, many years ago: he recommended coupling the output shaft directly to the engine - no transmission - and just using the pitch and the RPM to tune for the desired result. Later, a friend of mine who had spent a lot of time in Sweden and had one in his boat told me that there are lots of them available in that area, and the prices aren't all that high because all the commercial fishermen use them. He also mentioned that these rigs are very tough: he had talked to a captain who had bent his shaft and straightened it out by pounding it with a big hammer between two rocks; that worked fine, and let him stay out and keep fishing for the rest of that trip. Another friend, who built a big ferrocement sailboat (well, is still building it 30 years later - no masts yet, but he's cruised over 30k miles so far...), has a Hundestad and loves it. I got to play with it a couple of times, helping him move the boat and once saving it when it dragged while he was out of town, and was very impressed with the action and the obvious quality of the unit. The ability to smoothly tune for max thrust or max speed at a given RPM was very, very nice. 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| 26578|26573|2011-09-16 15:53:02|Doug Jackson|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Awesome! I like hearing that kind of news. Thanks again Ben.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: Origami Boat list Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat. On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:48PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Glad you liked them Ben.  And it was actually $65K new. It really > seems odd to me that there are so many of these in use in Scandinavia > and almost unknown in the Americas. I can only guess that it's a > difference in fuel prices. I was originally introduced to variable-pitch props by George Buehler, when I was thinking about building one of his designs, many years ago: he recommended coupling the output shaft directly to the engine - no transmission - and just using the pitch and the RPM to tune for the desired result. Later, a friend of mine who had spent a lot of time in Sweden and had one in his boat told me that there are lots of them available in that area, and the prices aren't all that high because all the commercial fishermen use them. He also mentioned that these rigs are very tough: he had talked to a captain who had bent his shaft and straightened it out by pounding it with a big hammer between two rocks; that worked fine, and let him stay out and keep fishing for the rest of that trip. Another friend, who built a big ferrocement sailboat (well, is still building it 30 years later - no masts yet, but he's cruised over 30k miles so far...), has a Hundestad and loves it. I got to play with it a couple of times, helping him move the boat and once saving it when it dragged while he was out of town, and was very impressed with the action and the obvious quality of the unit. The ability to smoothly tune for max thrust or max speed at a given RPM was very, very nice. 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] | 26579|26573|2011-09-17 14:36:38|Donal|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|We have a Sabb engine with variable pitch prop and I cannot imagine going back to anything else. I first heard of a Hundestad prop via Jay Benford decades ago. And I met a fellow in Washington recently with one of their engines, used on a sailing fishing boat. He starts it up in April and puts it to bed in October. He uses mostly sails to troll and the engine runs the refer. donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: has a Hundestad and loves it. I got to play with it a > couple of times, helping him move the boat and once saving it when it > dragged while he was out of town, and was very impressed with the action > and the obvious quality of the unit. The ability to smoothly tune for > max thrust or max speed at a given RPM was very, very nice. | 26580|26580|2011-09-19 19:14:39|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Hi Brent, In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... Martin.| 26581|26580|2011-09-19 20:15:39|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Hey Martin I have made the poured sockets that Brent shows in his book and they work very well. I poured zinc into the sockets over the cable. I kinked the ends of the cable a little so the zinc would flow into the strands as well as around them. The cable did  not fit perfect into the small hole of the socket so I made up a mix of steam cylinder oil and ceramic wool from a stainless steel wood stove chimney. I made a dam with it so the zinc would not run out the bottom of the hole. The steam cylinder oil is very sticky and when mixed with the ceramic wool is almost like Plasticine. An old-timer showed me this when I help him pour babbitt bearings in his sawmill, but he used asbestos shorts instead of the ceramic wool. James --- On Mon, 9/19/11, mdemers2005@... wrote: From: mdemers2005@... Subject: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:14 PM   Hi Brent, In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26582|26580|2011-09-19 20:25:17|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Also the sockets cost me nothing in material. I found the sch 40 pipe on an old gas furnace that was at the dump and the 1/2" square bar I cut out of a railing my neighbour was throwing out. --- On Mon, 9/19/11, James Pronk wrote: From: James Pronk Subject: Re: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 8:15 PM   Hey Martin I have made the poured sockets that Brent shows in his book and they work very well. I poured zinc into the sockets over the cable. I kinked the ends of the cable a little so the zinc would flow into the strands as well as around them. The cable did  not fit perfect into the small hole of the socket so I made up a mix of steam cylinder oil and ceramic wool from a stainless steel wood stove chimney. I made a dam with it so the zinc would not run out the bottom of the hole. The steam cylinder oil is very sticky and when mixed with the ceramic wool is almost like Plasticine. An old-timer showed me this when I help him pour babbitt bearings in his sawmill, but he used asbestos shorts instead of the ceramic wool. James --- On Mon, 9/19/11, mdemers2005@... wrote: From: mdemers2005@... Subject: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:14 PM   Hi Brent, In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26583|26583|2011-09-19 22:44:55|Doug Jackson|Tapering Pipe into a Mast / Exhaust -Step by step|Courtesy of Keith at www.turnwrightmachineworks.com who goes step by step how he built the tapered steel mast for the schooner Larinda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vK1oE3cN-I Keith does boat equipment repair videos so you might enjoy subscribing to his channel.  Doug SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26584|26535|2011-09-20 12:58:07|GP|Re: Port McNeil / Electric powered Swain|Anyone have an update on the Victor's maiden voyage yet? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > That was Victor Tymoshuk's boat, the one I built in Coombs a couple of years ago, a 36 ft twin keeler. I asked him how the electric drive was working out, and he said "Too soon to say." After sailing to Victoria in the fall, for the winter, just after launching, this is basically his maiden voyage. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > Brent... I am on Sointula. Lyle was saying a coupla days ago he saw one of your boats that was battery powered in Port McNeil. He was really impressed but did not get a chance to talk with the owner who was just leaving the dock. Apparently the boat left under good speed. Do you know whose boat it was? > > > > Gart > > > | 26585|26573|2011-09-20 13:55:47|brentswain38|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Expensive variable pitch and feathering props may be great in places where there is little debris floating around, but here in BC, with so many logs floating around , dinging them could be very expensive. Standard bronze props are available cheap all over the coast.I wouldn't want to be so dependent on something I didn't have a spare for. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:48PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Glad you liked them Ben.  And it was actually $65K new. It really > > seems odd to me that there are so many of these in use in Scandinavia > > and almost unknown in the Americas. I can only guess that it's a > > difference in fuel prices. > > I was originally introduced to variable-pitch props by George Buehler, > when I was thinking about building one of his designs, many years ago: > he recommended coupling the output shaft directly to the engine - no > transmission - and just using the pitch and the RPM to tune for the > desired result. Later, a friend of mine who had spent a lot of time in > Sweden and had one in his boat told me that there are lots of them > available in that area, and the prices aren't all that high because all > the commercial fishermen use them. He also mentioned that these rigs are > very tough: he had talked to a captain who had bent his shaft and > straightened it out by pounding it with a big hammer between two rocks; > that worked fine, and let him stay out and keep fishing for the rest of > that trip. > > Another friend, who built a big ferrocement sailboat (well, is still > building it 30 years later - no masts yet, but he's cruised over 30k > miles so far...), has a Hundestad and loves it. I got to play with it a > couple of times, helping him move the boat and once saving it when it > dragged while he was out of town, and was very impressed with the action > and the obvious quality of the unit. The ability to smoothly tune for > max thrust or max speed at a given RPM was very, very nice. > > > 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 > | 26586|26580|2011-09-20 13:58:17|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > Martin. > | 26587|26580|2011-09-20 14:01:29|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I've simply wrapped a wet rag around the bottom to stop the zinc from draining right thru. I bend the ends of the wire 180 degrees back on itself then pull it back into the socket, wrap the rag around and pour the zinc in. One guy who didn't bend the wire back on itself had his pull out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Hey Martin > I have made the poured sockets that Brent shows in his book and they work very well. I poured zinc into the sockets over the cable. I kinked the ends of the cable a little so the zinc would flow into the strands as well as around them. The cable did  not fit perfect into the small hole of the socket so I made up a mix of steam cylinder oil and ceramic wool from a stainless steel wood stove chimney. I made a dam with it so the zinc would not run out the bottom of the hole. The steam cylinder oil is very sticky and when mixed with the ceramic wool is almost like Plasticine. An old-timer showed me this when I help him pour babbitt bearings in his sawmill, but he used asbestos shorts instead of the ceramic wool. > James > > --- On Mon, 9/19/11, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > From: mdemers2005@... > Subject: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:14 PM > > >   > > > > > Hi Brent, > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26588|26535|2011-09-20 14:03:31|brentswain38|Re: Port McNeil / Electric powered Swain|Nothing since I saw him north bound in July. Lyle said he should be thru here any day now. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > Anyone have an update on the Victor's maiden voyage yet? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > That was Victor Tymoshuk's boat, the one I built in Coombs a couple of years ago, a 36 ft twin keeler. I asked him how the electric drive was working out, and he said "Too soon to say." After sailing to Victoria in the fall, for the winter, just after launching, this is basically his maiden voyage. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > Brent... I am on Sointula. Lyle was saying a coupla days ago he saw one of your boats that was battery powered in Port McNeil. He was really impressed but did not get a chance to talk with the owner who was just leaving the dock. Apparently the boat left under good speed. Do you know whose boat it was? > > > > > > Gart > > > > > > | 26589|26573|2011-09-20 14:56:05|Doug Jackson|Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.|Don't they more stainless up there just for that reason? Hundested is too expensive for replacements for my budget. Especially for a work boat in unfamiliar waters. Our current plan is to cast our own blades, along with a few spares. The sweet part is we can change a blade without pulling the boss.  My current thinking is to profile the blade like Max-Pro so it feathers as clean as possible, and shape them like this: http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/variable-pitch-propeller-blade.jpg%c2%a0%c2%a0so that the bulk of the surface area has the same pitch.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:55 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: A video tour of Paul's 65ft origami boat.   Expensive variable pitch and feathering props may be great in places where there is little debris floating around, but here in BC, with so many logs floating around , dinging them could be very expensive. Standard bronze props are available cheap all over the coast.I wouldn't want to be so dependent on something I didn't have a spare for. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:48PM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Glad you liked them Ben.  And it was actually $65K new. It really > > seems odd to me that there are so many of these in use in Scandinavia > > and almost unknown in the Americas. I can only guess that it's a > > difference in fuel prices. > > I was originally introduced to variable-pitch props by George Buehler, > when I was thinking about building one of his designs, many years ago: > he recommended coupling the output shaft directly to the engine - no > transmission - and just using the pitch and the RPM to tune for the > desired result. Later, a friend of mine who had spent a lot of time in > Sweden and had one in his boat told me that there are lots of them > available in that area, and the prices aren't all that high because all > the commercial fishermen use them. He also mentioned that these rigs are > very tough: he had talked to a captain who had bent his shaft and > straightened it out by pounding it with a big hammer between two rocks; > that worked fine, and let him stay out and keep fishing for the rest of > that trip. > > Another friend, who built a big ferrocement sailboat (well, is still > building it 30 years later - no masts yet, but he's cruised over 30k > miles so far...), has a Hundestad and loves it. I got to play with it a > couple of times, helping him move the boat and once saving it when it > dragged while he was out of town, and was very impressed with the action > and the obvious quality of the unit. The ability to smoothly tune for > max thrust or max speed at a given RPM was very, very nice. > > > 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] | 26590|26580|2011-09-20 17:10:34|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Brent, I am not sure if I get it... are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26591|26580|2011-09-20 17:13:37|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Brent, They charge $35.00 to install the sleeves (to crimp them) with the steel sleeves included for each wire, wich means both ends. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26592|26580|2011-09-20 19:48:20|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I am not sure if I get it... > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26593|26580|2011-09-21 12:13:11|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|OK thanks, I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I am not sure if I get it... > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26594|26594|2011-09-21 14:41:10|mkriley48|cheapest setup for repairs that works|looking for some suggestions on something that will work for the occasional repair running off a harbor freight cheepy generator. don't object to preheating with propane just welding trim or pinholes maybe stanchions. needs to be small and cheap. thanks mike| 26595|26580|2011-09-21 15:00:52|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|James, What will you do to prevent rust? when you say that you kinked the ends of the cable , did you splitted it or opened it like a funnel? that is enough to hold the wire? does the zinc stick to the cable like glue? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:15:37 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Hey Martin I have made the poured sockets that Brent shows in his book and they work very well. I poured zinc into the sockets over the cable. I kinked the ends of the cable a little so the zinc would flow into the strands as well as around them. The cable did not fit perfect into the small hole of the socket so I made up a mix of steam cylinder oil and ceramic wool from a stainless steel wood stove chimney. I made a dam with it so the zinc would not run out the bottom of the hole. The steam cylinder oil is very sticky and when mixed with the ceramic wool is almost like Plasticine. An old-timer showed me this when I help him pour babbitt bearings in his sawmill, but he used asbestos shorts instead of the ceramic wool. James --- On Mon, 9/19/11, mdemers2005@... wrote: From: mdemers2005@... Subject: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:14 PM Hi Brent, In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26596|26580|2011-09-21 16:03:37|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > OK thanks, > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26597|26594|2011-09-21 16:05:11|brentswain38|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Rig an alternator welder off your main engine, like the one I show in my book. Cost, under $50 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > looking for some suggestions on something that will work for the occasional repair running off a harbor freight cheepy generator. > don't object to preheating with propane just welding trim or pinholes > maybe stanchions. needs to be small and cheap. > thanks > mike > | 26598|26580|2011-09-21 16:06:02|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Brent, where do you get the zinc? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > OK thanks, > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26599|26580|2011-09-21 20:24:59|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I am having the sockets that I am making now galvanized. Any of the zink that gets knocked off the cable should be covered in zink anyway when I fill the sockets James   --- On Wed, 9/21/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 3:00 PM James, What will you do to prevent rust? when you say that you kinked the ends of the cable , did you splitted it or opened it like a funnel? that is enough to hold the wire? does the zinc stick to the cable like glue? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:15:37 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$   Hey Martin I have made the poured sockets that Brent shows in his book and they work very well. I poured zinc into the sockets over the cable. I kinked the ends of the cable a little so the zinc would flow into the strands as well as around them. The cable did  not fit perfect into the small hole of the socket so I made up a mix of steam cylinder oil and ceramic wool from a stainless steel wood stove chimney. I made a dam with it so the zinc would not run out the bottom of the hole. The steam cylinder oil is very sticky and when mixed with the ceramic wool is almost like Plasticine. An old-timer showed me this when I help him pour babbitt bearings in his sawmill, but he used asbestos shorts instead of the ceramic wool. James --- On Mon, 9/19/11, mdemers2005@... wrote: From: mdemers2005@... Subject: [origamiboats] rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 19, 2011, 7:14 PM   Hi Brent, In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]                           [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26600|26580|2011-09-22 13:25:46|martin demers|Re: flame spraying on hull?|Brent, I read about flame spraying (mention in your book), had it be en done on a complete hull before? would it be a good idea or is it too expensive? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > OK thanks, > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26601|26594|2011-09-22 14:22:27|m riley|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|no engine, working on the motoR mounts at anchor is the main reason I need one. thanks mike >Rig an alternator welder off your main engine, like the one I show in my >book. Cost, under $50 --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > looking for some suggestions on something that will work for the occasional repair running off a harbor freight cheepy generator. > don't object to preheating with propane just welding trim or pinholes > maybe stanchions. needs to be small and cheap. > thanks > mike | 26602|26594|2011-09-22 16:01:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:22:25AM -0700, m riley wrote: > no engine, > working on the motoR mounts at anchor is the main reason I need one. > thanks A Harbor Freight cheapie welder seems like a reasonable answer. :) Actually, I remember someone buying one - a 90A MIG machine, a *tiny* little toy - while I was in welding school; they brought it in to test it out. It really wasn't all that bad; better than I expected. 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| 26603|26594|2011-09-22 20:38:03|James Pronk|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|You could get an everlast DC stick welder for $375 I think?   http://www.everlastwelders.ca/product_details.php?id=391   I have a 200 amp mig/stick unit and a 180 amp tig. I am very happy with them James --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 4:01 PM   On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:22:25AM -0700, m riley wrote: > no engine, > working on the motoR mounts at anchor is the main reason I need one. > thanks A Harbor Freight cheapie welder seems like a reasonable answer. :) Actually, I remember someone buying one - a 90A MIG machine, a *tiny* little toy - while I was in welding school; they brought it in to test it out. It really wasn't all that bad; better than I expected. 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] | 26604|26594|2011-09-22 20:40:35|James Pronk|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Brent Could you run the alternator off an old lawn mower? James --- On Thu, 9/22/11, m riley wrote: From: m riley Subject: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 2:22 PM   no engine, working on the motoR mounts at anchor is the main reason I need one. thanks mike >Rig an alternator welder off your main engine, like the one I show in my >book. Cost, under $50 --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > looking for some suggestions on something that will work for the occasional repair running off a harbor freight cheepy generator. > don't object to preheating with propane just welding trim or pinholes > maybe stanchions. needs to be small and cheap. > thanks > mike [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26605|26580|2011-09-22 23:00:47|Darren Bos|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I must be missing something. Everywhere else on a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets supporting your rigging from degrading? My apologies if I've missed something obvious. Darren At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc >there is no way they can pull out. > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > about them in your book. Could they be painted > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26606|26594|2011-09-23 01:20:10|Matt Malone|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|What horsepower lawnmower engine would one need to run a weldernator ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26607|26580|2011-09-23 07:39:49|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I think you still need to paint it. A guy that I know was telling me that after two days in salt water he had rust streak all over his boat. A problem he never had in years of fresh water sailing. James --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Darren Bos wrote: From: Darren Bos Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 11:01 PM   I must be missing something. Everywhere else on a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets supporting your rigging from degrading? My apologies if I've missed something obvious. Darren At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc >there is no way they can pull out. > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > about them in your book. Could they be painted > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26608|26580|2011-09-23 10:34:25|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: bosdg@... Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ I must be missing something. Everywhere else on a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets supporting your rigging from degrading? My apologies if I've missed something obvious. Darren At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc >there is no way they can pull out. > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > about them in your book. Could they be painted > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26609|26594|2011-09-23 12:26:19|Mark Hamill|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Matt: Google "lawn mower welder". All the best, MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works What horsepower lawnmower engine would one need to run a weldernator ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26610|26594|2011-09-23 13:41:22|David Frantz|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|A good suggestion that leads to endless reading! There are a few problems to note, first off what is acceptable performance to one may not be to another. Another issue is that manufactures are often optimistic about how much power their engines put out, this is a big deal. Many guys end up using batteries to supplement the engine, to me that is less than ideal and a potential safety issue. Lastly finding suitable alternators is not easy. Now don't get me wrong these approaches do work and can be economical. That is if you have access to the parts at a reasonable price. On the other hand look at motor sizing on generator sets and commercial welders. Erring on the size of to big might make sense. I did a quick bit of math, assuming 120 amps max at an open circuit voltage of 36 volts and very modest losses you would need at least 7.5 HP to run well. This probably explains why on some of the sites you will find that guys have tried things like batteries and fly wheels, to store energy and smooth things out. The only other hurdle to deal with is amperage control. This actually seems to be a weak point in the designs. In the end you need to manage your expectations. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Matt: Google "lawn mower welder". All the best, MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matt Malone > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 PM > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works > > > > > > What horsepower lawnmower engine would one need to run a weldernator ? > > 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 > > > | 26611|26580|2011-09-23 14:07:12|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26612|26580|2011-09-23 14:25:56|brentswain38|Re: flame spraying on hull?|I once flame sprayed a 36 in California. The owner found it cheaper to buy the equipment used, and hire me to do it, than to hire a company to do it. The equipment he found used in a garage sale. At the time ,the US military was dumping its acetylene flame spray equipment for arc equipment so it was very cheap. I once suggested to a group of guys in Victoria many years ago, that they all pitch in and buy the equipment. They did, and got all their boats done for a fraction the cost of hiring a company to do it. Another one of my 36 footers Silas Crosby was done in the early 90's and has not a single speck of rust anywhere. I wouldn't do it below the waterline. I used galv for my rudder and paint kept falling off til the zinc was all gone. Above the waterline it almost eliminates maintenance, except for the odd extra coat of paint. When doing it , it is extremely important to keep constantly cleaning the little holes in the gun with a tip cleaner. It starts off with a very fine spray and very little heat build up on the steel.As the holes begin to plug up, it gets hotter and starts to splatter. At the first sign of this , take it apart and clean the holes in the gun. Otherwise, it sticks nowhere near as good with the rougher splattering spray. Peter Kinsey did a lot of research before doing his boat and concluded the aluminium zinc mixture was better than either zinc or aluminium alone. As it is sold by the pound , you get a lot more aluminium per pound than zinc , so what sounds more expensive is not necessarily so. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I read about flame spraying (mention in your book), had it be en done on a complete hull before? would it be a good idea or is it too expensive? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26613|26594|2011-09-23 14:30:17|brentswain38|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Yes, a 10 hp lawnmower engine would work. I once had a commercially built one which had a 10 hp gas engine on it. It put out 135 amps. The nice thing about it is you don't have to plug in anywhere. I have built a complete anchor winch from scratch while hanging off a mooring buoy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Brent > Could you run the alternator off an old lawn mower? > James > > --- On Thu, 9/22/11, m riley wrote: > > > From: m riley > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 2:22 PM > > >   > > > > no engine, > working on the motoR mounts at anchor is the main reason I need one. > thanks > mike > > >Rig an alternator welder off your main engine, like the one I show in my >book. Cost, under $50 > > --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > looking for some suggestions on something that will work for the occasional repair running off a harbor freight cheepy generator. > > don't object to preheating with propane just welding trim or pinholes > > maybe stanchions. needs to be small and cheap. > > thanks > > mike > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26614|26594|2011-09-23 14:31:20|Mark Hamill|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|I found the article on my computer about making a lawnmower welder if anybody is interested. Let me know and I will send a copy. MarkH mhamill1@... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26615|26594|2011-09-23 14:36:16|brentswain38|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|I control amperage with the throttle; RPM's. No problem. Auto wreckers have bins full of alternators, all of which work well. Mine cost me $25. It is one of the smoothest DC welders I have ever used, in over 40 years of steel working. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > A good suggestion that leads to endless reading! > > There are a few problems to note, first off what is acceptable performance to one may not be to another. Another issue is that manufactures are often optimistic about how much power their engines put out, this is a big deal. Many guys end up using batteries to supplement the engine, to me that is less than ideal and a potential safety issue. Lastly finding suitable alternators is not easy. > > Now don't get me wrong these approaches do work and can be economical. That is if you have access to the parts at a reasonable price. On the other hand look at motor sizing on generator sets and commercial welders. Erring on the size of to big might make sense. > > I did a quick bit of math, assuming 120 amps max at an open circuit voltage of 36 volts and very modest losses you would need at least 7.5 HP to run well. This probably explains why on some of the sites you will find that guys have tried things like batteries and fly wheels, to store energy and smooth things out. > > The only other hurdle to deal with is amperage control. This actually seems to be a weak point in the designs. In the end you need to manage your expectations. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > > > Matt: Google "lawn mower welder". All the best, MarkH > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Matt Malone > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works > > > > > > > > > > > > What horsepower lawnmower engine would one need to run a weldernator ? > > > > 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 26616|26580|2011-09-23 14:41:19|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: bosdg@... > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > Darren > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > >--- In > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > --- In > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > --- In > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26617|26594|2011-09-23 15:22:45|David Frantz|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Brent; What size engine do you have driving that welder? The original poster was asking about that and from what I can see on the net engine size can be a problem. My estimate on horse power is pretty rough. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:35 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > I control amperage with the throttle; RPM's. No problem. > Auto wreckers have bins full of alternators, all of which work well. Mine cost me $25. > It is one of the smoothest DC welders I have ever used, in over 40 years of steel working. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >> >> A good suggestion that leads to endless reading! >> >> There are a few problems to note, first off what is acceptable performance to one may not be to another. Another issue is that manufactures are often optimistic about how much power their engines put out, this is a big deal. Many guys end up using batteries to supplement the engine, to me that is less than ideal and a potential safety issue. Lastly finding suitable alternators is not easy. >> >> Now don't get me wrong these approaches do work and can be economical. That is if you have access to the parts at a reasonable price. On the other hand look at motor sizing on generator sets and commercial welders. Erring on the size of to big might make sense. >> >> I did a quick bit of math, assuming 120 amps max at an open circuit voltage of 36 volts and very modest losses you would need at least 7.5 HP to run well. This probably explains why on some of the sites you will find that guys have tried things like batteries and fly wheels, to store energy and smooth things out. >> >> The only other hurdle to deal with is amperage control. This actually seems to be a weak point in the designs. In the end you need to manage your expectations. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: >> >>> Matt: Google "lawn mower welder". All the best, MarkH >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Matt Malone >>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 PM >>> Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What horsepower lawnmower engine would one need to run a weldernator ? >>> >>> 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@...! 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 > > > | 26618|26580|2011-09-24 10:31:11|martin demers|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Brent, you mean zincs from boats? they also sell a synthetic stuff to pour into the sockets? good or bad? might be more corrosion resistant! Also, I have the choice between 3/4 in. sch. 40 and 3/4in. sch. 80 pipe for the poured sockets , the sch. 80 is a bit thicker but inside a little smaller...??? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:07:10 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26619|26580|2011-09-24 11:21:24|martin demers|Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft??|Brent, Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: bosdg@... > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > Darren > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > >--- In > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > --- In > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > --- In > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26620|26594|2011-09-24 12:51:36|wild_explorer|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|As I understand, the biggest problem is to find "right one" alternator with diodes which can handle high voltage. Brent in his book recommends external diodes if you picked "wrong one" and fried diodes on it (or make "protective" circuit the book and other sources recommend). Looks like to build this portable DIY gas-power welder is worth of effort. Automotive alternator is based on 3 phase relatively high-frequency AC generator (compare to outlet 1 phase AC = 50/60 Hz). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I control amperage with the throttle; RPM's. No problem. > Auto wreckers have bins full of alternators, all of which work well. Mine cost me $25. > It is one of the smoothest DC welders I have ever used, in over 40 years of steel working. > | 26621|26580|2011-09-24 21:16:05|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I have used zinc pulleys. James   --- On Sat, 9/24/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 10:31 AM Brent, you mean zincs from boats? they also sell a synthetic stuff to pour into the sockets? good or bad? might be more corrosion resistant! Also, I have the choice between 3/4 in. sch. 40 and 3/4in. sch. 80 pipe for the poured sockets , the sch. 80 is a bit thicker but inside a little smaller...??? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:07:10 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$   Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >                           [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26622|26580|2011-09-25 15:18:46|mkriley48|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|james, most likely the pulleys you have used are zimak or pot metal this is very weak and subject to corrosion. pure zink in not used to make things as it is expensive. pot metal is the stuff like on old cars that pits and crumbles. ,mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I have used zinc pulleys. > James >   > --- On Sat, 9/24/11, martin demers wrote: > > > From: martin demers > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 10:31 AM > > > > Brent, > > you mean zincs from boats? > they also sell a synthetic stuff to pour into the sockets? good or bad? might be more corrosion resistant! > > Also, I have the choice between 3/4 in. sch. 40 and 3/4in. sch. 80 pipe for the poured sockets , the sch. 80 is a bit thicker but inside a little smaller...??? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:07:10 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > >   > > > > Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >                           > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26623|26580|2011-09-25 20:03:00|James Pronk|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|I have some chunks of zinc that came out of a job that I had galvanized. I will melt that stuff out and replace it. Thanks James  --- On Sun, 9/25/11, mkriley48 wrote: From: mkriley48 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, September 25, 2011, 3:18 PM   james, most likely the pulleys you have used are zimak or pot metal this is very weak and subject to corrosion. pure zink in not used to make things as it is expensive. pot metal is the stuff like on old cars that pits and crumbles. ,mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I have used zinc pulleys. > James >   > --- On Sat, 9/24/11, martin demers wrote: > > > From: martin demers > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 10:31 AM > > > > Brent, > > you mean zincs from boats? > they also sell a synthetic stuff to pour into the sockets? good or bad? might be more corrosion resistant! > > Also, I have the choice between 3/4 in. sch. 40 and 3/4in. sch. 80 pipe for the poured sockets , the sch. 80 is a bit thicker but inside a little smaller...??? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:07:10 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > >   > > > > Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >                           > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26624|26624|2011-09-26 14:39:00|Jonathan Stevens|Compressor help|I have a compressor that has worked hard for me over the years. Recently it has developed a fault. When it has pumped itself up to pressure and the pressure switch has switched the motor off, air comes out of a brass widget at the bottom of the switch and keeps coming out until the pressure drops enough for the motor to start up again. What do I do to fix this, please? The brass widget has a pipe that connects it to the receiver. The air is coming out of a spigot on the side of the widget, above the pipe inlet. I undid the bottom nut and a spring and ball came out. They were clean with no corrosion at all so I put them back assuming that whatever they are meant to do, they still are doing. Jonathan. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26625|26624|2011-09-26 14:51:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: Compressor help|On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 07:39:25PM +0100, Jonathan Stevens wrote: > I have a compressor that has worked hard for me over the years. Recently it > has developed a fault. When it has pumped itself up to pressure and the > pressure switch has switched the motor off, air comes out of a brass widget > at the bottom of the switch and keeps coming out until the pressure drops > enough for the motor to start up again. What do I do to fix this, please? > The brass widget has a pipe that connects it to the receiver. The air is > coming out of a spigot on the side of the widget, above the pipe inlet. I > undid the bottom nut and a spring and ball came out. They were clean with no > corrosion at all so I put them back assuming that whatever they are meant to > do, they still are doing. Your "widget" sounds like a pressure relief valve (its job is to vent the air if the tank pressure becomes excessive.) If so, then the spring - despite the lack of any visible corrosion - may have fatigued to the point that it's not holding the valve closed any more, and needs to be replaced. You can check this by shimming the spring: put something under it before reinserting it that will compress it part-way. If the air stops leaking, or comes out slower, then - yep, the spring has become weak. Otherwise, it may be that the ball no longer seals to its seat - which could be caused by a bit of dirt on the ball or on the seat. 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| 26626|26624|2011-09-26 14:59:03|Aaron|Re: Compressor help|Yep I agree with Ben. Only I would just go to the hardware store and buy a new relief valve that matches the the one you have. Aaron From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Compressor help   On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 07:39:25PM +0100, Jonathan Stevens wrote: > I have a compressor that has worked hard for me over the years. Recently it > has developed a fault. When it has pumped itself up to pressure and the > pressure switch has switched the motor off, air comes out of a brass widget > at the bottom of the switch and keeps coming out until the pressure drops > enough for the motor to start up again. What do I do to fix this, please? > The brass widget has a pipe that connects it to the receiver. The air is > coming out of a spigot on the side of the widget, above the pipe inlet. I > undid the bottom nut and a spring and ball came out. They were clean with no > corrosion at all so I put them back assuming that whatever they are meant to > do, they still are doing. Your "widget" sounds like a pressure relief valve (its job is to vent the air if the tank pressure becomes excessive.) If so, then the spring - despite the lack of any visible corrosion - may have fatigued to the point that it's not holding the valve closed any more, and needs to be replaced. You can check this by shimming the spring: put something under it before reinserting it that will compress it part-way. If the air stops leaking, or comes out slower, then - yep, the spring has become weak. Otherwise, it may be that the ball no longer seals to its seat - which could be caused by a bit of dirt on the ball or on the seat. 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] | 26627|26624|2011-09-26 15:11:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: Compressor help|On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:59:02AM -0700, Aaron wrote: > Yep I agree with Ben. Only I would just go to the hardware store and buy a new relief valve that matches the the one you have. I keyed off the "been serving me for many years" part, and figured that parts might not be available. :) In addition, stuff that can be taken apart like that is designed to be serviceable - and given that the quality of modern replacements is quite often crap, I tend to repair when I can and replace only when I must. Part of that comes from cruising experience, as well: "make do" rather than "buy" is usually not a choice but a requirement when outside first-world countries. But I will say that mine is a specialized viewpoint, and Aaron's approach may be easier and simpler, if it's available. 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| 26628|26624|2011-09-26 15:12:12|Gord Schnell|Re: Compressor help|Or, when you reassembled the spring & ball, you reversed their order....ball goes in first. gord On 2011-09-26, at 11:51 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 07:39:25PM +0100, Jonathan Stevens wrote: > > I have a compressor that has worked hard for me over the years. Recently it > > has developed a fault. When it has pumped itself up to pressure and the > > pressure switch has switched the motor off, air comes out of a brass widget > > at the bottom of the switch and keeps coming out until the pressure drops > > enough for the motor to start up again. What do I do to fix this, please? > > The brass widget has a pipe that connects it to the receiver. The air is > > coming out of a spigot on the side of the widget, above the pipe inlet. I > > undid the bottom nut and a spring and ball came out. They were clean with no > > corrosion at all so I put them back assuming that whatever they are meant to > > do, they still are doing. > > Your "widget" sounds like a pressure relief valve (its job is to vent > the air if the tank pressure becomes excessive.) If so, then the spring > - despite the lack of any visible corrosion - may have fatigued to the > point that it's not holding the valve closed any more, and needs to be > replaced. You can check this by shimming the spring: put something under > it before reinserting it that will compress it part-way. If the air > stops leaking, or comes out slower, then - yep, the spring has become > weak. Otherwise, it may be that the ball no longer seals to its seat - > which could be caused by a bit of dirt on the ball or on the seat. > > 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] | 26629|26580|2011-09-26 16:25:20|brentswain38|Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$|Some have used epoxy with good results, other have had lightening blow the epoxy out. Sch 80 may work , if there is still enough room to get the folded back ends pulled back in. If not, 1 inch sch 80 could be used. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > you mean zincs from boats? > they also sell a synthetic stuff to pour into the sockets? good or bad? might be more corrosion resistant! > > Also, I have the choice between 3/4 in. sch. 40 and 3/4in. sch. 80 pipe for the poured sockets , the sch. 80 is a bit thicker but inside a little smaller...??? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:07:10 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Old discarded zincs from around ways and haul out facilities. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > where do you get the zinc? > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:03:35 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just bend them back on themselves one strand at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc there is no way they can pull out. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch square bar welded to it. You stick the wire into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked about them in your book. Could they be painted or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26630|26580|2011-09-26 16:28:08|brentswain38|Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft??|That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > Brent, > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: bosdg@ > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > Darren > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > >--- In > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > --- In > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26631|26594|2011-09-26 16:30:30|brentswain38|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Since I started hooking up a 60 watt 120 volt light bulb to the output, to absorb the surge , I haven't fried any more internal diodes in several years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > As I understand, the biggest problem is to find "right one" alternator with diodes which can handle high voltage. Brent in his book recommends external diodes if you picked "wrong one" and fried diodes on it (or make "protective" circuit the book and other sources recommend). > > Looks like to build this portable DIY gas-power welder is worth of effort. Automotive alternator is based on 3 phase relatively high-frequency AC generator (compare to outlet 1 phase AC = 50/60 Hz). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I control amperage with the throttle; RPM's. No problem. > > Auto wreckers have bins full of alternators, all of which work well. Mine cost me $25. > > It is one of the smoothest DC welders I have ever used, in over 40 years of steel working. > > > | 26632|26594|2011-09-27 12:49:31|wild_explorer|Re: cheapest setup for repairs that works|Some sources recommend to stay away from GM Delco alternators (and GM alternators in general), because it blows diodes if voltage is above 32V. Event it has more amperage, low open voltage (32V) is not enough for weldernator. Ford Motorcraft alternator's diodes can handle up to 200V. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Since I started hooking up a 60 watt 120 volt light bulb to the output, to absorb the surge , I haven't fried any more internal diodes in several years. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > As I understand, the biggest problem is to find "right one" alternator with diodes which can handle high voltage. Brent in his book recommends external diodes if you picked "wrong one" and fried diodes on it (or make "protective" circuit the book and other sources recommend). > > | 26633|26580|2011-09-27 22:49:59|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|Brent, Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > Brent, > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: bosdg@ > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > Darren > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > >--- In > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > --- In > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26634|26580|2011-09-27 23:57:34|Gord Schnell|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|If you use solid bar stock (round), you can shape it with your angle grinder to look and work like the commercially available ones that stand on 2 short support posts. the underside sweeps up on both ends while the top remains flat...giving a natural curve around which you can secure a loop or wrap your mooring line. Gord On 2011-09-27, at 7:49 PM, martin demers wrote: > > Brent, > > Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? > Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? > > > > > > > That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: >> >> >> >> Brent, >> >> >> Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? >> >> Martin. >> >> >> >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> From: brentswain38@... >> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 >> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. >> Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: >>> >>> >>> let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> From: bosdg@ >>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I must be missing something. Everywhere else on >>> a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes >>> to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome >>> plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, >>> so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets >>> supporting your rigging from degrading? My >>> apologies if I've missed something obvious. >>> >>> Darren >>> >>> At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I just bend them back on themselves one strand >>>> at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc >>>> there is no way they can pull out. >>>> >>>> --- In >>>> origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >>>> martin demers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK thanks, >>>>> >>>>> I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. >>>>> is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? >>>>> >>>>> Martin. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>>>> From: brentswain38@ >>>>> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 >>>>> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch >>>> 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch >>>> square bar welded to it. You stick the wire >>>> into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour >>>> molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs >>>> and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. >>>>> >>>>> --- In >>>> origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >>>> martin demers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure if I get it... >>>>>> are poured sockets stoppers at the end of >>>> the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? >>>>>> >>>>>> martin. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>>>>> From: brentswain38@ >>>>>> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 >>>>>> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease >>>> would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. >>>>>> Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and >>>> are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- In >>>> origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >>>> mdemers2005@ wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Brent, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In your book you recomend stainless >>>> sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at >>>> around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. >>>>>>> would steel ones do the job, or will they >>>> rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked >>>> about them in your book. Could they be painted >>>> or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also asked for the poured sockets, but >>>> they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for >>>> the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a >>>> bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into >>>> these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26635|26580|2011-09-28 16:51:32|brentswain38|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|Only maximizing your sail area, keeping the sail pressure low down , and having it low enough to make reefing easy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? > Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? > > > > > > > That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: bosdg@ > > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > > > >--- In > > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26636|26580|2011-09-28 16:56:36|brentswain38|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|Be careful not to make your pilothouse so tall it obscures visibility from the cockpit. Another disadvantage is the floor gets higher, and you can no longer use the area under the side deck for counter top. Once the pilothouse is tall enough to let you see the horizon ahead of you, you gain nothing more, in terms of visibility, by making it any higher. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? > Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@...oingf ahea dfrom it, you gain nothign in improved visibiloity by making it any higher and creat a lot of windage. > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? > > > > > > > That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: bosdg@ > > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > > > >--- In > > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26637|26580|2011-09-29 10:46:49|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|Brent, What do you think of the pilothouse on a ''Frances 34 Pilothouse'' (google image it) or pacific seacraft 40? if pilothouse top is a bit too high couldn't we simply raise cockpit floor a few inches? regarding counter top, the galley on my boat will be in the center of the boat. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:56:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top Be careful not to make your pilothouse so tall it obscures visibility from the cockpit. Another disadvantage is the floor gets higher, and you can no longer use the area under the side deck for counter top. Once the pilothouse is tall enough to let you see the horizon ahead of you, you gain nothing more, in terms of visibility, by making it any higher. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? > Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@...oingf ahea dfrom it, you gain nothign in improved visibiloity by making it any higher and creat a lot of windage. > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? > > > > > > > That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: bosdg@ > > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > > > >--- In > > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26638|26580|2011-09-29 15:10:20|brentswain38|Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top|I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. You could raise the cockpit , but that leaves you more exposed. Galley sinks drain far better from the extra height of a wheelhouse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > What do you think of the pilothouse on a ''Frances 34 Pilothouse'' (google image it) or pacific seacraft 40? > if pilothouse top is a bit too high couldn't we simply raise cockpit floor a few inches? > > regarding counter top, the galley on my boat will be in the center of the boat. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:56:35 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > > > > > > Be careful not to make your pilothouse so tall it obscures visibility from the cockpit. Another disadvantage is the floor gets higher, and you can no longer use the area under the side deck for counter top. > Once the pilothouse is tall enough to let you see the horizon ahead of you, you gain nothing more, in terms of visibility, by making it any higher. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > Beside the fact that the boom should clear someone's head when standing in the cockpit, is there a rule regarding the distance between the boom and the pilothouse top? > > Because I might raise my pilothouse top at some point and I prefer to set the right boom position now than later. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... ahea dfrom it, you gain nothign in improved visibiloity by making it any higher and creat a lot of windage. > > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:27:54 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring bits-solid shaft?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would work, if you take it to two support points, one ten inches below decks. You couldn't keep paint on anything which wasn't stainless and they would be a constant rust problem. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > Have ever you used SS solid shaft for mooring bits, instead of the 4'' sche. 40 that you suggest in your book? Stainless is not much popular in scrap yard around my place and they happen to have 1 1/2in and 2in ss solid shaft in stock right now. maybe too heavy? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:41:15 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only the exposed surface of the zinc oxidizes. It would take decades for the poured zinc to degrade enough to be even slighly noticable, unlike permanently submeged zincs. > > > Galvanizing is constantly being wasted, away so it is a good idea to paint all galvanizing from time to time. First wash it with vinegar, then water and let it dry, to get the oxide off. Makes paint stick much better. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > let wait to see what Brent has to say, he often mention boats , built his way, that are sailing for more than 20 years... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: bosdg@ > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:01:20 -0700 > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must be missing something. Everywhere else on > > > > a boat zinc is disposable, underwater it erodes > > > > to protect other metals, if you buy cheap chrome > > > > plated zinc hardware it is nearly biodegradable, > > > > so how do you keep the zinc in the poured sockets > > > > supporting your rigging from degrading? My > > > > apologies if I've missed something obvious. > > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > At 01:03 PM 21/09/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I just bend them back on themselves one strand > > > > >at a time, 180 degrees. Then submerged in zinc > > > > >there is no way they can pull out. > > > > > > > > > >--- In > > > > >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > >martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw the drawing , but it was not clear. > > > > > > is there a specific way to bend the ends back so it does not slip out? > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:48:19 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pored sockets are a cone shaped piece of sch > > > > > 40 pipe with a becket made out of half inch > > > > > square bar welded to it. You stick the wire > > > > > into the socket ,bend the ends back and pour > > > > > molten zinc in, then attach it to your tangs > > > > > and turnbuckles via the becket.There is a drawing of one in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > > martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if I get it... > > > > > > > are poured sockets stoppers at the end of > > > > > the wire or do they do the same job then the sleeves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:58:14 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rigging wire sleeves price$$$$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steel ones with a lot of epoxy or grease > > > > > would work fine . I didn't realize they had got that expensive. > > > > > > > Poured sockets are very cheap to build, and > > > > > are the only wire ends approved for bridges and elevators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > > mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your book you recomend stainless > > > > > sleeves. they seem to be quite expensive at > > > > > around $28.00 each at the local chain and cable supplier where I went today. > > > > > > > > would steel ones do the job, or will they > > > > > rust inside out, I noticed you didn't talked > > > > > about them in your book. Could they be painted > > > > > or greased? They are quite affordable at $3.00 each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also asked for the poured sockets, but > > > > > they are around $30.00 each too! I asked for > > > > > the galvanized ones, maybe the steel ones are a > > > > > bit cheaper. What do you recomend to pour into > > > > > these sockets? do you have to use the stuff they sell you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you also mention that two aluminium sleeves will do the job... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26639|26639|2011-09-29 15:16:17|brentswain38|Adequate paint|A friend recently told me he had plenty of paint on his boat, two coats of Wasser tar. Two coats is nothing. I wouldn't consider putting the colour coats on a hull until I had at least 5 coats of tar based paint on. That is the equivalent of 15 coats of other types of epoxy. I put five coats on my hull 27 years ago and it is still good. I put only four coats on my decks, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the number of rust spots I have to occasionally chase down.| 26640|26639|2011-09-29 18:40:03|martin demers|Re: Adequate paint|5 coats will require how many 5 gallons for a 36 or 37 boat? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:15:51 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Adequate paint A friend recently told me he had plenty of paint on his boat, two coats of Wasser tar. Two coats is nothing. I wouldn't consider putting the colour coats on a hull until I had at least 5 coats of tar based paint on. That is the equivalent of 15 coats of other types of epoxy. I put five coats on my hull 27 years ago and it is still good. I put only four coats on my decks, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the number of rust spots I have to occasionally chase down. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26641|26639|2011-09-30 14:23:31|brentswain38|Re: Adequate paint|I'm not sure, but I put 30 gallons on my 31, inside and out.Epoxy tar covers about 200 sq ft per gallon, three times the thickness of other epoxies. A 36 has roughly 500 sq ft of outside hull surface, and roughly 200 sq ft of deck and cabin. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > 5 coats will require how many 5 gallons for a 36 or 37 boat? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:15:51 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Adequate paint > > > > .t of outside hul surface. > > > A friend recently told me he had plenty of paint on his boat, two coats of Wasser tar. > Two coats is nothing. I wouldn't consider putting the colour coats on a hull until I had at least 5 coats of tar based paint on. That is the equivalent of 15 coats of other types of epoxy. I put five coats on my hull 27 years ago and it is still good. I put only four coats on my decks, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the number of rust spots I have to occasionally chase down. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26642|26639|2011-10-04 14:55:57|GP|Re: Adequate paint|An industrial spray painter told me specialized nozzels they use will actually penetrate deeper into metal than slathering paint on with a roller or brush. Just wondering if that is accurate or not? ... thanks Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I'm not sure, but I put 30 gallons on my 31, inside and out.Epoxy tar covers about 200 sq ft per gallon, three times the thickness of other epoxies. A 36 has roughly 500 sq ft of outside hull surface, and roughly 200 sq ft of deck and cabin. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > 5 coats will require how many 5 gallons for a 36 or 37 boat? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:15:51 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Adequate paint > > > > > > > > .t of outside hul surface. > > > > > > A friend recently told me he had plenty of paint on his boat, two coats of Wasser tar. > > Two coats is nothing. I wouldn't consider putting the colour coats on a hull until I had at least 5 coats of tar based paint on. That is the equivalent of 15 coats of other types of epoxy. I put five coats on my hull 27 years ago and it is still good. I put only four coats on my decks, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the number of rust spots I have to occasionally chase down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26643|26639|2011-10-04 16:45:08|brentswain38|Re: Adequate paint|Sounds like bullshit to me. How can paint penetrate steel? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > An industrial spray painter told me specialized nozzels they use will actually penetrate deeper into metal than slathering paint on with a roller or brush. Just wondering if that is accurate or not? > > ... thanks > Gary > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I'm not sure, but I put 30 gallons on my 31, inside and out.Epoxy tar covers about 200 sq ft per gallon, three times the thickness of other epoxies. A 36 has roughly 500 sq ft of outside hull surface, and roughly 200 sq ft of deck and cabin. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > 5 coats will require how many 5 gallons for a 36 or 37 boat? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:15:51 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Adequate paint > > > > > > > > > > > > .t of outside hul surface. > > > > > > > > > A friend recently told me he had plenty of paint on his boat, two coats of Wasser tar. > > > Two coats is nothing. I wouldn't consider putting the colour coats on a hull until I had at least 5 coats of tar based paint on. That is the equivalent of 15 coats of other types of epoxy. I put five coats on my hull 27 years ago and it is still good. I put only four coats on my decks, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the number of rust spots I have to occasionally chase down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 26644|26644|2011-10-04 19:05:57|kingsknight4life|MAST STORAGE|Hi I was just wondering if there is anyone in the Comox area that could store my mast for me? I would be willing to pay them, of course. Or maybe someone knows a way that I could get it to the mainland for cheap? Perhaps a boat owner could sail it across for me and I could pick it up there and take it back to Alberta with me? Maybe you just have a good suggestion for how to get my mast back to Alberta or store it safely on the Island? Thanks Rowland| 26645|26639|2011-10-05 06:34:12|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Adequate paint|I suspect your first comment nailed it, brent. I can see high-pressure paint jets entering the roughness at the boundary layer, but cannot see this happening in commercial painting. Commercial painting is concerned with looks and durability and efficiency, and a jet of paint would probably overspray/spill more. BMW used to paint cars (I´ve seen this myself) with a rotating disc (maybe 10 cm in diameter) about 3 m higher than the car, spinning 30.000 rpm or so, flinign the paint, to create a very very fine mist that gently settled on all surfaces. No yets, no nozzles, and the paintwork was good. New hvlp painting with less overspray uses lots of air, and little paint ... again no jets. > Sounds like bullshit to me. How can paint penetrate steel? > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26646|26639|2011-10-05 06:51:50|Denis Buggy|Re: Adequate paint|Gary I recollect reading a piece about an American paint contractor who specialized in superyachts using AWLGRIP --- he was quoted saying "" he personally rolled and tipped with his staff on every boat"" this means he used a roller to distribute the paint evenly and using a squirrel or finer brush he applied a cross stroke and then finished with a extremely light drawing of the brush hairs downwards across the fine horizontal brushstrokes which are starting to flatten -- the trick is judging the viscosity of the paint and how much air you have put into it which speeds up the thickening process -- if you can SEE AND FEEL THE PAINT flattening you are on the right track -- too much or too little will be found out by practice . I used to coach paint buses with CORLUX sadly no longer available --- you put on a lot more paint with a deep lustre not available with spraying and if you got it right a far superior gloss --- the drawback was that it took forever to dry and it was always a soft paint and would dull within 2 years -- the old system (1900s ) was a colour coat matt finish followed by coats of varnish and then rub down and varnish every year after that . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:55 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adequate paint An industrial spray painter told me specialized nozzels they use will actually penetrate deeper into metal than slathering paint on with a roller or brush. Just wondering if that is accurate or not? ... thanks Gary --- Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4) Recent Activity: a.. New Members 4 Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. 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] | 26647|26639|2011-10-05 12:55:59|wild_explorer|Re: Adequate paint|May be he meant adhesion? I can understand if thick paint is sprayed by high pressure painting gun to make it stick. Any liquid has surface tension which will not allow it to flow into very tiny "pockets" (surface roughness) in material. High pressure painting gun will force it into such pockets by splashing a drop of paint into finer drops on contact. Example: If you try to put a clay mix on a wall it may not stick, but if you trow it with a high force - it will ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > An industrial spray painter told me specialized nozzels they use will actually penetrate deeper into metal than slathering paint on with a roller or brush. Just wondering if that is accurate or not? > > ... thanks > Gary | 26648|26639|2011-10-05 13:39:17|brentswain38|Re: Adequate paint|It may be high presure when it leaves the gun ,but the droplets have little momentum of their own, and have little pressure left by the time they settle down lightly on the surface. An airless gun may have high pressure at the nozzle, but six inches away from it you can hold your hand in front of it and feel very little pressure. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > May be he meant adhesion? I can understand if thick paint is sprayed by high pressure painting gun to make it stick. Any liquid has surface tension which will not allow it to flow into very tiny "pockets" (surface roughness) in material. High pressure painting gun will force it into such pockets by splashing a drop of paint into finer drops on contact. Example: If you try to put a clay mix on a wall it may not stick, but if you trow it with a high force - it will ;)) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > An industrial spray painter told me specialized nozzels they use will actually penetrate deeper into metal than slathering paint on with a roller or brush. Just wondering if that is accurate or not? > > > > ... thanks > > Gary > | 26649|26644|2011-10-05 13:39:28|brentswain38|Re: MAST STORAGE|I'll ask Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > Hi > I was just wondering if there is anyone in the Comox area that could store my mast for me? > I would be willing to pay them, of course. > > Or maybe someone knows a way that I could get it to the mainland for cheap? Perhaps a boat owner could sail it across for me and I could pick it up there and take it back to Alberta with me? > > Maybe you just have a good suggestion for how to get my mast back to Alberta or store it safely on the Island? > > Thanks > Rowland > | 26650|26639|2011-10-05 19:42:56|Donal|Re: Adequate paint|While I am far from an expert, I did, not long back, edit a magazine for industrial coatings applications. I watched stuff go down on bridges, buildings, the D/FW airport terminal roads, coal fired power plants, refineries, offshore oil rigs and insides of tanker cars, etc. All of what I've seen going down (and my Nikons have overspray to prove it!) consist of a primer and several layers of top coat. The primer is key to good adhesion. The primer is all about adhesion and not about protection or appearance. I once asked a chemist from one of the major manufacturers just how thick the primer had to be. His answer was: one molecule. The thinner the better, as long as there is complete coverage. A haze. Of course, cleaning the substrate properly is vital. No pro expects to do anything with one top coat. Generally there are several and generally to very tight specs, often about 4 mils. There are devices that can be used to measure that coverage as you go along. The thin layers allow the paint (coating, actually, in the biz), to quickly and evenly dry or cure (two part) before the next coat is applied just in time for a chemical bond (since paint doesn't have much adhesive quality). The one coating exception is poly urea. It goes down without primer, but it comes out of heated hoses and 160 some degree F, mixes in the air and cures within 20 seconds or so. It has been used to coat the bottoms of boats to act as a anti-foulant, because it is easy to wipe off what might get attached. And there is no getting it off or overcoating. The recent development of paints and coatings using nanotechnology claims to be a breakthrough in combining primer and paint. I've heard good things about the latex versions, though it tends to be very thick, but goes on easily and has better self leveling, similar to using Penetrol or Flotrol in conventional paints. By the way, the scrubber room in a coal fired power plant looks a lot like the "shower" rooms at Achuswitz. The sprayed limestone slurry combines with the exhaust gases and forms gypsum. One plant I visited has a drywall factory across the road. And you can imagine the quality of coating that can stand up to the heat and corrosion. donal| 26651|26639|2011-10-06 17:20:59|Paul Wilson|Re: Adequate paint|I have been doing a lot of spray painting lately. This is a generalization but I think the advantage over brush or roller is that if you have a good hand, it is possible to put paint on more evenly and smoothly. With a glossy top coat used on areas like cabin sides and topsides, dirt will show less and the surface will be easier to clean. With thicker paints like epoxies a pressure pot works well if you use the right tip. I used a pressure pot to spray on my antifouling....it worked great....nice and even with little waste. Cheers, Paul| 26652|26639|2011-10-07 02:06:16|m riley|Re: Adequate paint|using the word primer is like using the word cancer, there are many kinds for many purposes. you were describing a bonding primer, other common ones are sanding primers, sealing primers, hi- build primers, some have more than one property. always use the recommend type of primer for the substrate. and follow the recommended thickness.  coal tar epoxy is a sealing and barrier coat primer and needs to be at least the reccomend millage mike| 26653|26639|2011-10-07 04:42:10|Denis Buggy|Re: Adequate paint|All the info re paint use that you need is on a website called AKZO NOBEL. they make the best marine paints in the world . denis buggy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26654|26545|2011-10-07 12:37:33|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Just to get an idea what thinner metal I can weld with an electrode I picked some thin metal in the lab and started experimenting. Our instructor watching me trying to weld thin metal (about half size of smallest 6011 electrode) asked me why not use MIG for such task. After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) I never used MIG, so what people familiar with the process and flux-core think about using it for boat building on the field? Does it really simplify and speed up welding? P.S. Of cause nothing can beat skills & stick welding as most affordable and useful to learn.| 26655|26545|2011-10-07 12:45:58|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Correction: Wire NR-152 http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-152%28LincolnElectric%29 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 > > But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) | 26656|26545|2011-10-07 13:26:20|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questions|Wild I have a Miller 210 110/220v that I am using with E71-11. It works just fine brush of any slag clean up and indications like porosity or slag intrapment and run another pass if needed. My preference with this small machine (85 lbs) was for seal welding and welding the furring strip (studs) backing clips. This machine does have a limited duty cycle but one should not be welding that much in the same area as to hit the limit which shuts of the welding ability while it cools down. A 10lbs spool of .035 wire cost me $60. I still welded most of my hull with E6010 and E7018 mostly that is what I am the most comfortable with. Hopefully without getting into the old pissing match of what is the right way. If my other larger wire feed machine was more portable I would have used E71-11 .045 wire for the whole boat. But I have had a small welding shop for several years, I didn't just go out and buy it just build a one off boat. Brent and many more myself include recomend most people stick with a stick machine.   Aaron   From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 8:45 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions   Correction: Wire NR-152 http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-152%28LincolnElectric%29 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 > > But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26657|26545|2011-10-07 13:29:21|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Sorry... Looks like first wire type was correct. Now I am totally confused - too many types... http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/consumables/flux-cored-wires-self-shielded/Pages/flux-cored-wires-self-shielded.aspx --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Correction: Wire NR-152 > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-152%28LincolnElectric%29 > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > > After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work > > > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 > > > > But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) > | 26658|26545|2011-10-07 13:40:19|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Basic Welding... don't get me started... but since you have... I used my flux core wire feed welder to weld steel that was about as thick as a pop can to a piece that was about 1 mm thick. For a moment there I thought I was a pro. My unit is a cheapo Canadian Tire job, 4 heat settings, max 70 Amps. I bought it originally to weld up a snow bucket for my tractor, made with a lot of thin sheet metal to be big but light, not strong like a dirt bucket, made for clearing a lot of fresh-fallen snow at once. Thing of beauty, and still water tight -- I have to make sure water does not freeze in the bottom or I have ice that will not fall out when I am clearing snow. Since I only oil-sprayed it, the entire thing is rusting uniformly, nothing funny going on at the welds. It is nowhere near salt water. Since doing the pop-can thin weld with flux-wire-feed welder, and feeling like a pro for like 10 minutes, I have again succeeded in screwing up a simple 6011 job with my buzz-box, made some holes I did not want, and can still weld better with 7018 and one hand than 6011 and two hands. I keep my rod dry, and I still have not had as much trouble with 7018 as 6011. Well, there was the one rough 7018 slag picking job in a corner where I did some foolish figure-8 thing at the end... will keep the beads straight from now on. Here is what I suspect is a pro trick that they all assume we all know about already so they never mention it: the knotted wire cup brush on an angle grinder: http://www.princessauto.com/workshop/power-tools/power-tool-accessories/angle-grinder-accessories/8170441-3-knotted-wire-cup-brush I have not found anything that gets down to bare metal so fast, satistfyingly, smoothly, uniformly or easily. Paint, rust, mill scale, all gone like butter. Yes, a grinding disk is good, but you end up grinding off a lot of high spots to clean the low spots. There is nothing better for getting 6011 slag off, even the little bits that hang at the edges of the weld. I have ground 3 of these brushes down to nothing already. I have done a nice flat-bed cargo trailer, licensed and everything that continues to draw in admirers at all the saturday-morning do'in stuff stores. I am nearly done my cradle for my sailboat, all stick welding, sometimes with a lot of grinding on the 6011 root passes. Also, that pop-can thick metal, on a cheap folding chair, ripped through again. Teenagers being goofs. So basic welding continues to have successes and setbacks. Welding thin sheet metal using flux-core still holds water after 5 years and still shovels 2-foot snowfalls, no problemo. Canadian Tire has a reasonable Lincoln 140 Amp flux core welder on sale right now: http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/browse/6/Tools/WeldingSoldering/Welders/PRD~0588040P/Lincoln+Electric+MIG+Pak+140+Wire+Feed+Welder.jsp?locale=en for $265 where I live. I checked my 70 Amp flux core welder, it still works OK, so, I will not be trading up just yet. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:37:25 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Just to get an idea what thinner metal I can weld with an electrode I picked some thin metal in the lab and started experimenting. Our instructor watching me trying to weld thin metal (about half size of smallest 6011 electrode) asked me why not use MIG for such task. After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) I never used MIG, so what people familiar with the process and flux-core think about using it for boat building on the field? Does it really simplify and speed up welding? P.S. Of cause nothing can beat skills & stick welding as most affordable and useful to learn. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26659|26639|2011-10-07 18:55:48|brentswain38|Re: Adequate paint|While primers in industrial applications may be for bonding only, on a boat it has the protection advantage of protecting the steel if the paint gets chipped, until you get the chance to replace the epoxy. No primer, and it starts to rust immediately . In this use, an extra coat of zinc primer is an advantage. It also protects wheelabraded steel until you can the epoxy on. Worked well that way for my boat, eliminating the need to sandblast. One primer you want to avoid like the plague on a steel boat is acid based etch primer. I've seen nothing but disaster for those who have used it on steel. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Donal" wrote: > > While I am far from an expert, I did, not long back, edit a magazine for industrial coatings applications. I watched stuff go down on bridges, buildings, the D/FW airport terminal roads, coal fired power plants, refineries, offshore oil rigs and insides of tanker cars, etc. > > All of what I've seen going down (and my Nikons have overspray to prove it!) consist of a primer and several layers of top coat. The primer is key to good adhesion. The primer is all about adhesion and not about protection or appearance. I once asked a chemist from one of the major manufacturers just how thick the primer had to be. His answer was: one molecule. The thinner the better, as long as there is complete coverage. A haze. > > Of course, cleaning the substrate properly is vital. > > No pro expects to do anything with one top coat. Generally there are several and generally to very tight specs, often about 4 mils. There are devices that can be used to measure that coverage as you go along. The thin layers allow the paint (coating, actually, in the biz), to quickly and evenly dry or cure (two part) before the next coat is applied just in time for a chemical bond (since paint doesn't have much adhesive quality). > > The one coating exception is poly urea. It goes down without primer, but it comes out of heated hoses and 160 some degree F, mixes in the air and cures within 20 seconds or so. It has been used to coat the bottoms of boats to act as a anti-foulant, because it is easy to wipe off what might get attached. And there is no getting it off or overcoating. > > The recent development of paints and coatings using nanotechnology claims to be a breakthrough in combining primer and paint. I've heard good things about the latex versions, though it tends to be very thick, but goes on easily and has better self leveling, similar to using Penetrol or Flotrol in conventional paints. > > By the way, the scrubber room in a coal fired power plant looks a lot like the "shower" rooms at Achuswitz. The sprayed limestone slurry combines with the exhaust gases and forms gypsum. One plant I visited has a drywall factory across the road. And you can imagine the quality of coating that can stand up to the heat and corrosion. > > donal > | 26660|26545|2011-10-07 19:13:38|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I think some information falls into "basics". In the SMAW class, information about using propane torch, plasma cutter was useful. I learned that a tip of plasma cutter last about 2 hours (start/stop cutting shortens this time). Instructor just told people: "Use 120A for 1/8 7018 from flat to vertical-up and 160A for 1/8 7024". I am only one person who using 6011 in the lab (with DC welder) and trying different current setting. I do not even need to go to a store-room to get electrodes - big box of 6011 is laying around and nobody wants it ;)). I learned that it is easier to weld (and make holes) with 95A than with 85A. Most people already doing vertical-up with 7018 and I still practicing making reasonably good horizontal welds with 6011. But... If you can weld with 6011 rod using buzz-box on minimal current setting, you should not have any problem to weld with DC welder & 7018/7024 ;). Instructor allows to try MIG and pulse-MIG (it is the same universal DC welder in the lab we use). Pulse-MIG is expensive. Both use shielded gas and I did not want to waste my time. Now, when I know that MIG type welder can use flux-core wire, I may give a try.| 26661|26545|2011-10-07 19:44:48|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions|Do not use flux core, I simply don't believe I leads to the quality of welds you need on a boat. Mig welding is another matter and could be considered ideal for most sheet metal work. There are qualifications though. For one the work needs to be absolutely clean and the mate up of parts should be precise. Further shielding gasses mean that you need to be indoors, in a shielded area or wait for no wind. It would be interesting to get your instructors input on flux core for boats. It is the reality of contamination that directly causes concern. I'd really would want to avoid a process that leaves inclusions and contamination in the weld. After all a boat isn't a sieve. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:37 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > Just to get an idea what thinner metal I can weld with an electrode I picked some thin metal in the lab and started experimenting. Our instructor watching me trying to weld thin metal (about half size of smallest 6011 electrode) asked me why not use MIG for such task. > > After some talking about boat project and requirements to weld 1/8 & 3/16 steel outdoors, he said that self shielded flux core wire NR-211-MP should work > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Consumables/Pages/product.aspx?product=LincolnElectric_US_Consumable_Flux-CoredWires-Self-Shielded-Innershield-InnershieldNR-211-MP%28LincolnElectric%29 > > But it allows only one pass (cannot be done multi-pass because of contaminating secondary passes) > > I never used MIG, so what people familiar with the process and flux-core think about using it for boat building on the field? Does it really simplify and speed up welding? > > P.S. Of cause nothing can beat skills & stick welding as most affordable and useful to learn. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26662|26545|2011-10-07 22:53:07|Doug Jackson|Nibral vs Bronze|How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze?   Doug SubmarineBoat.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26663|26545|2011-10-07 23:29:06|Paul Wilson|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|I am stating the obvious but does it have a brand stamp on it that you could look up via the manufacturer? From what I have read Nibral is stronger but more expensive and normally used on higher performance engines. If it was your standard low speed prop for a displacement boat you could probably assume that it is plain bronze. Paul On 8/10/2011 3:53 p.m., Doug Jackson wrote: > > How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze? > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > | 26664|26545|2011-10-07 23:44:51|Doug Jackson|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|That might work. The back story is that I'm going to buy scrap props, which hopefully the prop shop guy can identify, and then melt them down and cast blades for our Hundested hub. Most of these will be off ski boats and likely NiBrAl, but I'd like to know a quick test if one exist.  A Rockwell hardness test would work but that's too expensive.  Maybe the results are noticeable by just hitting it with a center punch?    Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze   I am stating the obvious but does it have a brand stamp on it that you could look up via the manufacturer? From what I have read Nibral is stronger but more expensive and normally used on higher performance engines. If it was your standard low speed prop for a displacement boat you could probably assume that it is plain bronze. Paul On 8/10/2011 3:53 p.m., Doug Jackson wrote: > > How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze? > > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26665|26545|2011-10-08 12:24:17|Matt Malone|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|Nibral is a type of bronze. Type #46: 76% copper, 8.5-9.5% aluminum, 4.0-5.5% nickel, 3.0-5.0% iron 0.6-3.5 manganese, some lead and zinc, strength 480 MPa Naval M Bronze is 88% copper, 6.0% tin, 4.5% zinc, 1.5% lead, tensile strength 276 MPa "Nickel" or "Manganese" bronze, really just has a lot more tin in it, strength: 386 MPa 56-60% copper, 36-40% zinc, 1% iron, 1% tin, <1% nickel, manganese, Lead, Aluminium It would require a stamp or chemical / metallurgical analysis to distinguish Nibral for certain from other bronzes, however using a click-type center-punch, and a sample of ordinary marine bronze will tell you if the one you are looking at is stronger than the piece you have. Stronger = smaller dent from the punch. http://www.princessauto.com/workshop/hand-tools/striking-tools/punches/8009237-automatic-centre-punch Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:44:50 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze That might work. The back story is that I'm going to buy scrap props, which hopefully the prop shop guy can identify, and then melt them down and cast blades for our Hundested hub. Most of these will be off ski boats and likely NiBrAl, but I'd like to know a quick test if one exist. A Rockwell hardness test would work but that's too expensive. Maybe the results are noticeable by just hitting it with a center punch? Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze I am stating the obvious but does it have a brand stamp on it that you could look up via the manufacturer? From what I have read Nibral is stronger but more expensive and normally used on higher performance engines. If it was your standard low speed prop for a displacement boat you could probably assume that it is plain bronze. Paul On 8/10/2011 3:53 p.m., Doug Jackson wrote: > > How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze? > > Doug > SubmarineBOat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26666|26545|2011-10-08 12:30:46|Doug Jackson|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|Thanks Matt. I'll get one of those and give it a go.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 11:24 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze   Nibral is a type of bronze. Type #46: 76% copper, 8.5-9.5% aluminum, 4.0-5.5% nickel, 3.0-5.0% iron 0.6-3.5 manganese, some lead and zinc, strength 480 MPa Naval M Bronze is 88% copper, 6.0% tin, 4.5% zinc, 1.5% lead, tensile strength 276 MPa "Nickel" or "Manganese" bronze, really just has a lot more tin in it, strength: 386 MPa 56-60% copper, 36-40% zinc, 1% iron, 1% tin, <1% nickel, manganese, Lead, Aluminium It would require a stamp or chemical / metallurgical analysis to distinguish Nibral for certain from other bronzes, however using a click-type center-punch, and a sample of ordinary marine bronze will tell you if the one you are looking at is stronger than the piece you have. Stronger = smaller dent from the punch. http://www.princessauto.com/workshop/hand-tools/striking-tools/punches/8009237-automatic-centre-punch Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:44:50 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze That might work. The back story is that I'm going to buy scrap props, which hopefully the prop shop guy can identify, and then melt them down and cast blades for our Hundested hub. Most of these will be off ski boats and likely NiBrAl, but I'd like to know a quick test if one exist. A Rockwell hardness test would work but that's too expensive. Maybe the results are noticeable by just hitting it with a center punch? Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze I am stating the obvious but does it have a brand stamp on it that you could look up via the manufacturer? From what I have read Nibral is stronger but more expensive and normally used on higher performance engines. If it was your standard low speed prop for a displacement boat you could probably assume that it is plain bronze. Paul On 8/10/2011 3:53 p.m., Doug Jackson wrote: > > How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze? > > Doug > SubmarineBOat.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26667|26545|2011-10-08 15:05:59|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I will ask, but our instructors may not know much about small boat building. Shipbuilding may have different requirements as well. And the answer may vary depending how you ask the question ;) At least I can see 7018 and 7024 electrodes as consumables for shipbuilding http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/industries/shipbuilding/Pages/related-consumables.aspx May be better to e-mail and ask Lincoln's experts? I do not feel I am able to ask correct questions to get best possible answer ;( --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > It would be interesting to get your instructors input on flux core for boats. It is the reality of contamination that directly causes concern. I'd really would want to avoid a process that leaves inclusions and contamination in the weld. After all a boat isn't a sieve. > | 26668|26545|2011-10-08 17:53:49|brentswain38|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|A good way to check scrap props you plan top use is balance it on your finger and tap it. If it has a clear ring, it has no electrolysis. If it has a dull thunk sound , it has electrolysis. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > That might work. The back story is that I'm going to buy scrap props, which hopefully the prop shop guy can identify, and then melt them down and cast blades for our Hundested hub. Most of these will be off ski boats and likely NiBrAl, but I'd like to know a quick test if one exist.  A Rockwell hardness test would work but that's too expensive.  Maybe the results are noticeable by just hitting it with a center punch?  >   > Doug > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Paul Wilson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:28 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze > > >   > I am stating the obvious but does it have a brand stamp on it that you > could look up via the manufacturer? From what I have read Nibral is > stronger but more expensive and normally used on higher performance > engines. If it was your standard low speed prop for a displacement boat > you could probably assume that it is plain bronze. > > Paul > > On 8/10/2011 3:53 p.m., Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > How do you tell if a prop is Nibral vs Bronze? > > > > Doug > > SubmarineBoat.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26669|26545|2011-10-08 18:26:04|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions|There is always the possibility that I and some of the people I know that weld can't do flux core worth a darn. It is just that what I've seen of it is not pretty. At least not when compared against MIG or stick welds Now maybe there are factors at work here that go beyond the operator, but I doubt a better machine could help. I've seen indications that a variant of flux core, in combination with a shield gas, is used in commercial ship building. However I neither have the equipment nor experience with this process (the name of which escapes me). It certainly wouldn't hurt to ask Lincoln, welding may be old technology but it isn't totally stagnate technology. They will certainly have more up to date info. There are practical problems to using Any sort of wire feeding welder in ship building though. One is that your stinger is incredibly short and can not be realistically lengthened. Thus the need to constantly move the welder around and the frustration with things constantly out of reach. Also that stinger is fixed and not conducive to getting into tight locations. With a stick you can bend the electrode to fit if needed. Also MIG torches require more effort in positioning to be able to see the weld puddle well. In some commercial shops they deal with these MIG welding issues in different ways. The short stinger cable can be dealt with by putting the welder on an overhead crane, cable or swing arm to allow the welder to be positioned easily and dynamically. The lack of flexibility can be dealt with by using parts positioners and jigs. Of course being inside solves the shield gas problem. You can certainly address these issues when working on a boat but in my mind it requires extra effort for a one off build. Sent from my iPad On Oct 8, 2011, at 3:05 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > I will ask, but our instructors may not know much about small boat building. Shipbuilding may have different requirements as well. And the answer may vary depending how you ask the question ;) > > At least I can see 7018 and 7024 electrodes as consumables for shipbuilding > > http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/industries/shipbuilding/Pages/related-consumables.aspx > > May be better to e-mail and ask Lincoln's experts? I do not feel I am able to ask correct questions to get best possible answer ;( > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >> >> It would be interesting to get your instructors input on flux core for boats. It is the reality of contamination that directly causes concern. I'd really would want to avoid a process that leaves inclusions and contamination in the weld. After all a boat isn't a sieve. >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26670|26545|2011-10-09 08:45:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|Doug - As it happens, my friend with the 63' ferrocement boat with the Hundestadt has just pulled into town - and when I mentioned your current "excellent adventure", he offered to help with whatever advice you might find useful. Since Norm's been using this system for over 30 years now, knows it down to the last block and pin (he went into great detail about how the hub is arranged, etc.), and is one of the sharpest people I know when it comes to boat systems, I thought you'd have a good time chatting with him. Norm Johnson bandership@... 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| 26671|26545|2011-10-09 09:27:18|Doug Jackson|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|Thank you Ben.   Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze   Doug - As it happens, my friend with the 63' ferrocement boat with the Hundestadt has just pulled into town - and when I mentioned your current "excellent adventure", he offered to help with whatever advice you might find useful. Since Norm's been using this system for over 30 years now, knows it down to the last block and pin (he went into great detail about how the hub is arranged, etc.), and is one of the sharpest people I know when it comes to boat systems, I thought you'd have a good time chatting with him. Norm Johnson bandership@... 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]| 26672|26545|2011-10-09 09:37:38|Ben Okopnik|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:27:16AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Thank you Ben. My pleasure, Doug. I just sent you his phone number; he just told me that he hasn't been doing email much lately. 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| 26673|26545|2011-10-09 09:51:03|Doug Jackson|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|Got it.  I'll give him a call latter today.  I know everyone in your neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :)   I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can recommend a blade design.  I've been working of the pattern for casting blades this week. In order to avoid needing a lathe with a 13in swing I've decided to bolt the blades to the hub.  Each blade takes has over 1200 pounds of load, but I can get three 1/4" bolts on each side of the blades root. I was looking at 416HT hardened and tempered stainless for the strength. Would those be a problem in Nibral? Is there a better choice.    Doug SubmarineBoat.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze   On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:27:16AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Thank you Ben. My pleasure, Doug. I just sent you his phone number; he just told me that he hasn't been doing email much lately. 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] | 26674|26545|2011-10-09 11:28:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: Nibral vs Bronze|On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got it.  I'll give him a call latter today.  I know everyone in your > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :)   Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > recommend a blade design. He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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| 26675|26545|2011-10-09 16:30:15|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Brent made it pretty clear, 6011 / 6010 is all that should be used on the hull of an orgami. It is true that 60-series stick is stronger than the plate one is working with. The designer said... done. I might even tow the hull around a bumpy field for a little while to try to make any of my bad 6011 welds pop then as opposed to later. That said, for things that are not orgami-ed... like hatches, tanks, fuel tanks for certain, hard pointsin general, engine mounts in particular, I have greater confidence in the quality of my 7018 beads, and it is easier to build up over passes. And some pro welder will tell me I am making a mistake, but, at slightly higher currents, 7018 AC 4.0mm becomes a little like a grader, it can level off humps and make something way smoother. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:05:56 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions I Will ask, but our instructors may not know much about small boat building. Shipbuilding may have different requirements as well. And the answer may vary depending how you ask the question ;) At least I can see 7018 and 7024 electrodes as consumables for shipbuilding http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/industries/shipbuilding/Pages/related-consumables.aspx May be better to e-mail and ask Lincoln's experts? I do not feel I am able to ask correct questions to get best possible answer ;( --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > It would be interesting to get your instructors input on flux core for boats. It is the reality of contamination that directly causes concern. I'd really would want to avoid a process that leaves inclusions and contamination in the weld. After all a boat isn't a sieve. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26676|26676|2011-10-09 21:22:04|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|hello Brent, I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? Martin.| 26677|26580|2011-10-09 22:55:38|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top|Brent, Here is picture of my boat, how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. You could raise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26678|26580|2011-10-10 11:36:26|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|Brent, here is the picture Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:55:37 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top Brent, Here is picture of my boat, how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. You could raise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26679|26369|2011-10-10 12:45:23|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|Re: mast location|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26680|26369|2011-10-10 12:48:53|martin demers|Re: mast location- skeg and rudder picture|Brent, regarding the position of my skeg and rudder, here is what it looklikes so far! Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:45:21 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26681|26580|2011-10-10 12:55:24|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|I just realised I dont use the right method to send pictures, is it possible to do via the yahoo group e-mail or do I have to place them in the photo album absolutely? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:34:39 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture > > > Brent, > > here is the picture > > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:55:37 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > > > > > > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [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]| 26682|26580|2011-10-10 13:12:12|Aaron|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|Martin How are you tring to upload the pics?   From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:55 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture   I just realised I dont use the right method to send pictures, is it possible to do via the yahoo group e-mail or do I have to place them in the photo album absolutely? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:34:39 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture > > > Brent, > > here is the picture > > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:55:37 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > > > > > > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [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]| 26683|26683|2011-10-10 13:13:26|Roy|pictures and urls|I dont know why but I never see any pictures and the urls all aren't hyperlinked ... why is that so? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26684|26683|2011-10-10 13:34:00|Matt Malone|Re: pictures and urls|"[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]" This mailing list strips a message down to bare text. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: DeafMessianic@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:56:07 -0700 Subject: [origamiboats] pictures and urls I dont know why but I never see any pictures and the urls all aren't hyperlinked ... why is that so? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26685|26676|2011-10-10 13:35:45|scott|Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|I would definately paint.. this company produces epoxy paints that are designed to paint the inside of fuel tanks with. http://www.ppg.com/coatings/pmcglobal/Pages/petrochemical.aspx scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > hello Brent, > > > I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. > I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? > and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? > > Martin. > | 26686|26683|2011-10-10 13:47:07|Aaron|Re: pictures and urls|Test Photo From: Roy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] pictures and urls   I dont know why but I never see any pictures and the urls all aren't hyperlinked ... why is that so? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26687|26683|2011-10-10 13:49:19|Aaron|Re: pictures and urls|yep stripped it From: Aaron To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] pictures and urls   Test Photo From: Roy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] pictures and urls   I dont know why but I never see any pictures and the urls all aren't hyperlinked ... why is that so? [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]| 26688|26545|2011-10-10 15:53:48|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questioNs|I am not questioning Brent's recommendations... That why I am learning to weld with 6011/6010 electrode and put aside 7018/7024 for now. Did you mean 70-series electrode has stronger metal in it than mild steel plate (600 series)? As I understand, shipbuilders (not small boat builders) use stronger steel (700 series?) and that why they use 70-series consumables. It was a discussion here not so long ago about the caution to use stronger metal in the weld than surrounding metal. For small boats I see recommendations to use 60-series consumables for 600-series steel for most work. I am with you about bigger size electrode ;)). It seems easier for me to weld with bigger size electrode for some reasons at this time. I have more troubles to weld with 3/32 than with 1/8. P.S. Our instructor focuses on construction type welding. That why I am trying to sort out some information applicable for small boatbuilding - it just has different requirements. Thanks to ALL for an input on this subject - very helpful. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent made it pretty clear, 6011 / 6010 is all that should be used on the hull of an orgami. It is true that 60-series stick is stronger than the plate one is working with. The designer said... done. I might even tow the hull around a bumpy field for a little while to > try to make any of my bad 6011 welds pop then as opposed to later. > > That said, for things that are not orgami-ed... like hatches, tanks, fuel tanks for certain, hard pointsin general, engine mounts in particular, I have greater confidence in the quality of my 7018 beads, and it is easier to build up over passes. > > And some pro welder will tell me I am making a mistake, but, at slightly higher currents, 7018 AC 4.0mm becomes a little like a grader, it can level off humps and make something way smoother. > | 26689|26545|2011-10-10 16:17:09|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Anyone else do any testing of there own welds?  Brent has said there is a place for E7018.  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. Aaron From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:53 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs   I am not questioning Brent's recommendations... That why I am learning to weld with 6011/6010 electrode and put aside 7018/7024 for now. Did you mean 70-series electrode has stronger metal in it than mild steel plate (600 series)? As I understand, shipbuilders (not small boat builders) use stronger steel (700 series?) and that why they use 70-series consumables. It was a discussion here not so long ago about the caution to use stronger metal in the weld than surrounding metal. For small boats I see recommendations to use 60-series consumables for 600-series steel for most work. I am with you about bigger size electrode ;)). It seems easier for me to weld with bigger size electrode for some reasons at this time. I have more troubles to weld with 3/32 than with 1/8. P.S. Our instructor focuses on construction type welding. That why I am trying to sort out some information applicable for small boatbuilding - it just has different requirements. Thanks to ALL for an input on this subject - very helpful. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent made it pretty clear, 6011 / 6010 is all that should be used on the hull of an orgami. It is true that 60-series stick is stronger than the plate one is working with. The designer said... done. I might even tow the hull around a bumpy field for a little while to > try to make any of my bad 6011 welds pop then as opposed to later. > > That said, for things that are not orgami-ed... like hatches, tanks, fuel tanks for certain, hard pointsin general, engine mounts in particular, I have greater confidence in the quality of my 7018 beads, and it is easier to build up over passes. > > And some pro welder will tell me I am making a mistake, but, at slightly higher currents, 7018 AC 4.0mm becomes a little like a grader, it can level off humps and make something way smoother. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26690|26545|2011-10-10 17:35:49|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Aaron, Yep, Brent pointed in his book that 6011/6010, 7018, 7024 may be used for Origami project. I put aside 7018/7024 (just for now): - 7024 because it is for flat/horizontal position and easiest to weld with - 7018 because it is hard to restart when tacking. If electrode cools off you may need to take it out of the holder and scratch the tip of electrode for easier restart. Easier to weld than with 6010/6011. 7018/7024 need some extra attention for proper storage. - 6010/6011 is for all positions and harder to weld than with 7018/7024. That why I decided to concentrate my learning on 6010/6011 ;) And as you mentioned, proper application (where and how) is important. It deserves to be in "basic welding of Origami hull" section ;) What will happen if you bend pates welded by 6010/6011 and 7018? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds?  > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron | 26691|26545|2011-10-10 18:30:24|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Just have a file close to scratch the nub off on E7018. I'm not telling you will have to try it. Remember, first you have to get the hull tacked together. From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs   Aaron, Yep, Brent pointed in his book that 6011/6010, 7018, 7024 may be used for Origami project. I put aside 7018/7024 (just for now): - 7024 because it is for flat/horizontal position and easiest to weld with - 7018 because it is hard to restart when tacking. If electrode cools off you may need to take it out of the holder and scratch the tip of electrode for easier restart. Easier to weld than with 6010/6011. 7018/7024 need some extra attention for proper storage. - 6010/6011 is for all positions and harder to weld than with 7018/7024. That why I decided to concentrate my learning on 6010/6011 ;) And as you mentioned, proper application (where and how) is important. It deserves to be in "basic welding of Origami hull" section ;) What will happen if you bend pates welded by 6010/6011 and 7018? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds?  > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26692|26580|2011-10-10 19:16:57|Gord Schnell|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|Martin The picture didn't make it....either didn't attach or got "stripped off" due to size. Gord On 2011-10-10, at 8:34 AM, martin demers wrote: > > Brent, > > here is the picture > > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:55:37 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > > > > > > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [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 > > > | 26693|26545|2011-10-10 22:45:18|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questioNs|I will try it tomorrow... I will assume Aaron means to do a 6011 bead on one and ONLY a 7018 bead on the other. I have used 7018-only some times on quick joining. Since it was explained to me, I have used 6011 first for penetration, then if it is likely to be a high stress area, grind off the raised 6011 bead, then do 7018. More often, I have been laying 7018 beads over (grading down) the 6011 bead. If I were doing something not very structural, but that I want to be 100% sure was sealed, like a tank, I might be temped to go 7018-only. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:30:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs ... I'm not telling you will have to try it. ... From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs Aaron, .... What will happen if you bend pates welded by 6010/6011 and 7018? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds? > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26694|26545|2011-10-11 00:48:35|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questioNs|That will work remember just 1 inch tack welds.  After the piece cools down put it in a vice and bend the T back from the unwelded side over so it breaks from the root first. Aaron From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:43 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs   I will try it tomorrow... I will assume Aaron means to do a 6011 bead on one and ONLY a 7018 bead on the other. I have used 7018-only some times on quick joining. Since it was explained to me, I have used 6011 first for penetration, then if it is likely to be a high stress area, grind off the raised 6011 bead, then do 7018. More often, I have been laying 7018 beads over (grading down) the 6011 bead. If I were doing something not very structural, but that I want to be 100% sure was sealed, like a tank, I might be temped to go 7018-only. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:30:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs ... I'm not telling you will have to try it. ... From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs Aaron, .... What will happen if you bend pates welded by 6010/6011 and 7018? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds? > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26695|26545|2011-10-11 00:58:16|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Mat E6010 is best with DC+ and E6011 can be used with ether AC or DC Linclon rod claims AC is best each his own. I prefer 6010 on DC+ or reverse polarity. Aaron From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:43 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs   I will try it tomorrow... I will assume Aaron means to do a 6011 bead on one and ONLY a 7018 bead on the other. I have used 7018-only some times on quick joining. Since it was explained to me, I have used 6011 first for penetration, then if it is likely to be a high stress area, grind off the raised 6011 bead, then do 7018. More often, I have been laying 7018 beads over (grading down) the 6011 bead. If I were doing something not very structural, but that I want to be 100% sure was sealed, like a tank, I might be temped to go 7018-only. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:30:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs ... I'm not telling you will have to try it. ... From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs Aaron, .... What will happen if you bend pates welded by 6010/6011 and 7018? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds? > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26696|26545|2011-10-11 12:19:40|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questioNs|I remember our instructor mentioned the benefit of using secondary pass over main one. It caught my attention because it may happen on metal with large cooling area (like hull plate). Sometime weld bead is cooling too fast and got tempered and prone to crack. Using secondary pass with low penetration heats up main weld and remove tempering and stress. So, only secondary pass with low penetration is tempered now (which could be ground down/off). In this forum I recall the same explanation. Same with multi-pass welds. Do not shoot the messenger ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Since it was explained to me, I have used 6011 first for penetration, then if it is likely to be a high stress area, grind off the raised 6011 bead, then do 7018. More often, I have been laying 7018 beads over (grading down) the 6011 bead. If I were doing something not very structural, but that I want to be 100% sure was sealed, like a tank, I might be temped to go 7018-only. > > Matt | 26697|26545|2011-10-11 12:26:18|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questioNs|I assume you are talking about AWS position 2F on 3/16 plate welded with 1/8 electrode? It will require to change current/amperage settings when switching from 6011 to 7018 as well? I will try.... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > That will work remember just 1 inch tack welds.  After the piece cools down put it in a vice and bend the T back from the unwelded side over so it breaks from the root first. > Aaron > | 26698|26545|2011-10-11 13:09:22|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questioNs|Could be 2F I have a hard time remembering all of the different structural and pipe positions. Flat or horizontal vertical it won't matter for a 1" tack in the middle of say 3" wide piece. From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:26 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs   I assume you are talking about AWS position 2F on 3/16 plate welded with 1/8 electrode? It will require to change current/amperage settings when switching from 6011 to 7018 as well? I will try.... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > That will work remember just 1 inch tack welds.  After the piece cools down put it in a vice and bend the T back from the unwelded side over so it breaks from the root first. > Aaron > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26699|26369|2011-10-11 14:47:06|brentswain38|Re: mast location- skeg and rudder picture|Where's the picture? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > regarding the position of my skeg and rudder, here is what it looklikes so far! > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:45:21 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26700|26580|2011-10-11 15:41:16|wild_explorer|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|Just put the pictures in "Photos" section of this group. Do not try to attach it to the message - will not work.| 26701|26676|2011-10-11 16:58:51|brentswain38|Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|I once had a bare steel diesel tank. It corroded on the top which was not covered by diesel. One can't rely on the tank being full all the time. Some condensation can do the same to the bottom. Since then I have always coated my tanks with epoxy tar, no problems. I put a long, tubular screen on the pickup, so if any epoxy comes loose, it will stay in the tank, and not get into any hoses. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > hello Brent, > > > I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. > I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? > and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? > > Martin. > | 26702|26580|2011-10-11 16:59:40|brentswain38|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top|Don't see the picture --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > > > > > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26703|26369|2011-10-11 17:02:02|brentswain38|Re: mast location|A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 26704|26545|2011-10-11 17:07:33|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questioNs|I find 4 inch tacks for the hull seams are minimal. If they crack , you try to get 4 inch ones outside as soon as possible. One the decks are on, and the hull becomes super rigid, you can put 4 inch welds next to any cracked ones, then grind out the cracked ones and redo them, after you have welded the outsides of them. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron wrote: > > Anyone else do any testing of there own welds?  > Brent has said there is a place for E7018. >  Try this make T fillet weld with two separate pieces of 3/6" plate. Make a 1 inch long weld with E6010 in the middle. Then do the same with E7018. Use 1/8" rod for each then bend each plate until it breaks. What happened? When you start tacking up a hull you will need to understand what happens when you load the tension on the welds while bend (folding) the hull. How large will the tacks need to be. How you use what electrode, is what is going to be most important. > Aaron > > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:53 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questioNs > > >   > I am not questioning Brent's recommendations... That why I am learning to weld with 6011/6010 electrode and put aside 7018/7024 for now. > > Did you mean 70-series electrode has stronger metal in it than mild steel plate (600 series)? As I understand, shipbuilders (not small boat builders) use stronger steel (700 series?) and that why they use 70-series consumables. It was a discussion here not so long ago about the caution to use stronger metal in the weld than surrounding metal. For small boats I see recommendations to use 60-series consumables for 600-series steel for most work. > > I am with you about bigger size electrode ;)). It seems easier for me to weld with bigger size electrode for some reasons at this time. I have more troubles to weld with 3/32 than with 1/8. > > P.S. Our instructor focuses on construction type welding. That why I am trying to sort out some information applicable for small boatbuilding - it just has different requirements. Thanks to ALL for an input on this subject - very helpful. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent made it pretty clear, 6011 / 6010 is all that should be used on the hull of an orgami. It is true that 60-series stick is stronger than the plate one is working with. The designer said... done. I might even tow the hull around a bumpy field for a little while to > > try to make any of my bad 6011 welds pop then as opposed to later. > > > > That said, for things that are not orgami-ed... like hatches, tanks, fuel tanks for certain, hard pointsin general, engine mounts in particular, I have greater confidence in the quality of my 7018 beads, and it is easier to build up over passes. > > > > And some pro welder will tell me I am making a mistake, but, at slightly higher currents, 7018 AC 4.0mm becomes a little like a grader, it can level off humps and make something way smoother. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26705|26580|2011-10-11 21:12:24|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top|To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:59:38 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top Don't see the picture --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > > > > > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26706|26369|2011-10-11 21:16:36|martin demers|Re: mast location|the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26707|26580|2011-10-11 21:16:50|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture|Yes, I will place them in the photos section. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:41:15 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top- Picture Just put the pictures in "Photos" section of this group. Do not try to attach it to the message - will not work. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26708|26676|2011-10-11 21:21:46|martin demers|Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|ok, thanks, I'll have a look. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: audeojude@... Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:35:43 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning I would definately paint.. this company produces epoxy paints that are designed to paint the inside of fuel tanks with. http://www.ppg.com/coatings/pmcglobal/Pages/petrochemical.aspx scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > hello Brent, > > > I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. > I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? > and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26709|26545|2011-10-12 12:22:07|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose.| 26710|26545|2011-10-12 19:32:23|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > | 26711|26369|2011-10-12 19:34:39|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Compare that with the weight of the keel continued that far aft. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26712|26545|2011-10-12 20:44:47|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > | 26713|26545|2011-10-13 16:07:07|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > | 26714|26369|2011-10-13 16:10:49|brentswain38|Re: mast location|If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26715|26369|2011-10-13 17:38:45|martin demers|Re: mast location|I thought about it but it gives more place to store the sails and some stuff and a longer deck to walk around. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26716|26545|2011-10-13 17:43:03|martin demers|Re: Basic welding questions|I find it difficult to weld 1\8in steel with 1\8 rod, also I seem to have more sucess with 7018 rod than with 6011. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:56 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26717|26369|2011-10-13 17:48:01|martin demers|Re: mast location|also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs to be to be out of the way. if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would weigh almost nothing. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26718|26369|2011-10-13 19:51:56|James Pronk|Re: mast location|Would a totally sealed, steel rudder be lighter in the water because of the flotation of the trapped air? James  --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 5:47 PM also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs to be  to be out of the way. if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would weigh almost nothing. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location                         If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking  a bit off the overhang will reduce  the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is.  Multiply weight  by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. >  > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > >    > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] ------------------------------------ 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] | 26719|26369|2011-10-13 20:06:06|martin demers|Re: mast location|James, Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:51:53 -0700 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Would a totally sealed, steel rudder be lighter in the water because of the flotation of the trapped air? James --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 5:47 PM also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs to be to be out of the way. if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would weigh almost nothing. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] ------------------------------------ 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] | 26720|26369|2011-10-13 20:58:31|martin demers|Re: mast location|if I find out by when putting my boat in the water that the rear is really too heavy, then I will add a few feet to the fore foot of my keel to counter balance...lol,lol To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26721|26369|2011-10-13 21:02:31|James Pronk|Re: mast location|Or you could put a wooden carving of a woman under the bow spirit --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 8:57 PM if I find out by when putting my boat in the water that the rear is really too heavy, then I will add a few feet to the fore foot of my keel to counter balance...lol,lol To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location   If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] ------------------------------------ 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] | 26722|26545|2011-10-13 22:54:56|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Basic welding questions|Martin, 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way down to 2 amps! Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: martin demers Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:42 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions I find it difficult to weld 1\8in steel with 1\8 rod, also I seem to have more sucess with 7018 rod than with 6011. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:56 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in > this thread. > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the > designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all > > economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building > > methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > > wrote: > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. > > > It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very > > > limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he > > > teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, > > > another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be > > > used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas > > > shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined > > > recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already > > > proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the > > > project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > [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 Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/| 26723|26545|2011-10-14 04:26:27|Wally Paine|Re: Basic welding questions|It maybe a silly question:  Why not simply use a thinner rod? At least until one has sufficient practise to easily handle the thicker one? Cheers, Wally Paine ________________________________ From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:55 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Martin, 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to melt the rod.  The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good joint shape and size.  The welding also goes really fast, you don't have time to think, just time to do.  So you'll find it gets easier after you have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to do the right thing.  Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine.  You can easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine.  Tig goes all the way down to 2 amps! Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: martin demers Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:42 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions I find it difficult to weld 1\8in steel with 1\8 rod, also I seem to have more sucess with 7018 rod than with 6011. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:56 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions       What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this  tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in > this thread. > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the > designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all > > economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building > > methods.  They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > > wrote: > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. > > > It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He  has very > > > limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he > > > teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, > > > another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be > > > used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas > > > shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined > > > recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already > > > proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the > > > project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > [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 Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------ 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]| 26724|26545|2011-10-14 11:37:47|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|Thanks Brent! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > | 26725|26369|2011-10-14 11:43:23|martin demers|Re: mast location|Good idea, I wanted to name my boat;'' Siren chaser'' To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:02:30 -0700 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Or you could put a wooden carving of a woman under the bow spirit --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 8:57 PM if I find out by when putting my boat in the water that the rear is really too heavy, then I will add a few feet to the fore foot of my keel to counter balance...lol,lol To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] ------------------------------------ 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] | 26726|26369|2011-10-14 12:00:50|wild_explorer|Re: mast location|It sounds like you want to wear life jacket and try to dive ;) I lost the track why you want to do all those changes at ones, but it looks that you are not taking into consideration all effects of such changes. P.S. Weight balance spreadsheet, sails plan change info are in group's file section. Rough estimate for underwater displacement of "Brent's type" rudder and skeg is about 0.1 tonne. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > James, > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > martin. | 26727|26369|2011-10-14 12:18:01|martin demers|Re: mast location|Wild, ask Brent about the reason to move the rudder more aft, you will see why I am doing it. I dont have any precise sail plan yet ; there where no mast with my boat when I bought it, so many options are possible ... At nearly 20,000 lbs. will a skeg and rudder installed more aft on my boat will have such big influence? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:00:48 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location It sounds like you want to wear life jacket and try to dive ;) I lost the track why you want to do all those changes at ones, but it looks that you are not taking into consideration all effects of such changes. P.S. Weight balance spreadsheet, sails plan change info are in group's file section. Rough estimate for underwater displacement of "Brent's type" rudder and skeg is about 0.1 tonne. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > James, > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26728|26545|2011-10-14 12:23:03|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions (off topick)|I tried to practice with 1/16 E6013 rod @ 30-35A (for thin metal welding). Very hard! It burns quickly and require more precise coordination to feed the rod and maintain the arc's gap. That why (I think) it easier for a beginner as me to weld with bigger rod size. I could not weld very well 1/16 small piece of plate to larger 3/16 with 1/16 rod (it was easy to brake a weld). Weld with 1/8 rod was much stronger (compare by the same deposited metal amount). It is probably better just to get as good as possible with electrode type and size you choose ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Wally Paine wrote: > > It maybe a silly question:  Why not simply use a thinner rod? At least until one has sufficient practise to easily handle the thicker one? > > Cheers, > > Wally Paine > > > ________________________________ > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:55 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Martin, > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > melt the rod.  The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > joint shape and size.  The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > time to think, just time to do.  So you'll find it gets easier after you > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > do the right thing.  Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine.  You can > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine.  Tig goes all the way > down to 2 amps! > > Gary H. Lucas > | 26729|26369|2011-10-14 13:13:32|wild_explorer|Re: mast location|Martin, Your boat should have some visible mast location (where original mast was)... Right? If boat is not unique (several were built) you can ask others owners about original mast/masts (location, length) and sailsplan your boat had. It will be very useful to know original configuration of the boat if you plan to make changes. May be after learning original configuration you might change your mind about making changes ;) Same may apply to skeg and rudder. If this information is not available, you might try to use what sailboat modelers do - use all kind of experiments and tricks to find right mast location. It does not cost much for a model, but will be expensive on full size boat. P.S. Where are the pictures of your boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Wild, ask Brent about the reason to move the rudder more aft, you will see why I am doing it. > > I dont have any precise sail plan yet ; there where no mast with my boat when I bought it, so many options are possible ... > > At nearly 20,000 lbs. will a skeg and rudder installed more aft on my boat will have such big influence? > > Martin. | 26730|26369|2011-10-14 17:41:33|martin demers|Re: mast location|Wild, worse case scenario, I will install old rudder back in it's place. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:00:48 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location It sounds like you want to wear life jacket and try to dive ;) I lost the track why you want to do all those changes at ones, but it looks that you are not taking into consideration all effects of such changes. P.S. Weight balance spreadsheet, sails plan change info are in group's file section. Rough estimate for underwater displacement of "Brent's type" rudder and skeg is about 0.1 tonne. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > James, > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26731|26369|2011-10-14 18:33:00|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Slightly lighter, but not by much A friend told me of a westsail 32 he saw being built . H e ade the rudder out of many layers of plywood glassed over. It was so heavy he had to hire a crane to ship it. The one I built him for a 31 weighed a fraction the weight. The 1/8th steel rudders on the 36 can be lifted and shipped by hand. There is no benefit in going 3/16th plate for a rudder. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Would a totally sealed, steel rudder be lighter in the water because of the flotation of the trapped air? > James� > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: > > > From: martin demers > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 5:47 PM > > > > also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs to be� to be out of the way. > if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would weigh almost nothing. > Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > � � > � � � > � � � > � � � If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking� a bit off the overhang will reduce� the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is.� Multiply weight� by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > >� > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > >��� > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] > | 26732|26369|2011-10-14 18:34:34|brentswain38|Re: mast location|I once had a plywood rudder raked forward in the traditional manner . It floated, so every time I went forward to pick the anchor up , it floated up and put the helm hard over. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > James, > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: jpronk1@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:51:53 -0700 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > Would a totally sealed, steel rudder be lighter in the water because of the flotation of the trapped air? > James > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: > > From: martin demers > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 5:47 PM > > also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs to be to be out of the way. > if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would weigh almost nothing. > Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] > | 26733|26369|2011-10-14 18:35:38|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Adding to the forefoot gives one weather helm. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > if I find out by when putting my boat in the water that the rear is really too heavy, then I will add a few feet to the fore foot of my keel to counter balance...lol,lol > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26734|26369|2011-10-14 18:38:30|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Wont have much influence at all, but will give you far better downwind control. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Wild, ask Brent about the reason to move the rudder more aft, you will see why I am doing it. > > I dont have any precise sail plan yet ; there where no mast with my boat when I bought it, so many options are possible ... > > At nearly 20,000 lbs. will a skeg and rudder installed more aft on my boat will have such big influence? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:00:48 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > It sounds like you want to wear life jacket and try to dive ;) > > I lost the track why you want to do all those changes at ones, but it looks that you are not taking into consideration all effects of such changes. > > P.S. Weight balance spreadsheet, sails plan change info are in group's file section. Rough estimate for underwater displacement of "Brent's type" rudder and skeg is about 0.1 tonne. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > James, > > > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > > > martin. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26735|26369|2011-10-14 18:53:26|Paul Wilson|Re: mast location|I had friends who needed to build a new rudder for their 50 foot fiberglass boat after hitting a reef. I told them to build one out of steel but they insisted in building one out of timber and glass like the old one. It weighed much more than a steel one and took them almost two weeks to shape and build....I could have built and finished a steel one for a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the time and it probably would have had a better shape as well. Paul On 15/10/2011 11:32 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > Slightly lighter, but not by much > A friend told me of a westsail 32 he saw being built . H e ade the > rudder out of many layers of plywood glassed over. It was so heavy he > had to hire a crane to ship it. The one I built him for a 31 weighed a > fraction the weight. The 1/8th steel rudders on the 36 can be lifted > and shipped by hand. There is no benefit in going 3/16th plate for a > rudder. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , James Pronk wrote: > > > > Would a totally sealed, steel rudder be lighter in the water because > of the flotation of the trapped air? > > James� > > > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > From: martin demers > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 5:47 PM > > > > > > > > also, I dont have a boom yet, so I dont know where my bac stay needs > to be� to be out of the way. > > if one day I get lucky to put my hands on some carbon fibe for a > cheap pricer, I could make my rudder out of that material it would > weigh almost nothing. > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > � � > > � � � > > � � � > > � � � If you don't need that long overhang to get your > backstay to clear the boom , knocking� a bit off the overhang will > reduce� the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the > skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is.� > Multiply weight� by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison > in ft lbs. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , martin demers > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it > myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between > 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > >� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >��� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry > about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft > would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , martin demers > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now > have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I > asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to > weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and > you said it was ok > > > > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat > could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now > concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, > my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a > lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional > methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral > resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails > center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center > of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get > you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and > keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is > forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] > > > > | 26736|26369|2011-10-14 19:06:08|martin demers|Re: mast location|ok, I am learning something now, better ask before...(I was thinking of those english channel cutters with long keel ) To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:35:36 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Adding to the forefoot gives one weather helm. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > if I find out by when putting my boat in the water that the rear is really too heavy, then I will add a few feet to the fore foot of my keel to counter balance...lol,lol > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26737|26369|2011-10-14 19:09:46|martin demers|Re: mast location|Brent, my boat had the rudder positioned same place as your first boat ''pipe dream'' and you said it was not steerable. this one reason to change it place plus I will have skeg cooling; one big improvement! To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:38:27 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Wont have much influence at all, but will give you far better downwind control. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Wild, ask Brent about the reason to move the rudder more aft, you will see why I am doing it. > > I dont have any precise sail plan yet ; there where no mast with my boat when I bought it, so many options are possible ... > > At nearly 20,000 lbs. will a skeg and rudder installed more aft on my boat will have such big influence? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:00:48 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > It sounds like you want to wear life jacket and try to dive ;) > > I lost the track why you want to do all those changes at ones, but it looks that you are not taking into consideration all effects of such changes. > > P.S. Weight balance spreadsheet, sails plan change info are in group's file section. Rough estimate for underwater displacement of "Brent's type" rudder and skeg is about 0.1 tonne. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > James, > > > > Well, I think you are right, the air is making the steel rudder weighting less, but a carbon fiber one with some trapped air inside would be a lot lighter. > > My steel rudder should be filled with air (if I welded it right...lol) > > > > martin. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26738|26545|2011-10-14 19:28:03|martin demers|Re: Basic welding questions|Gary, Didn't Brent mentioned in his book or in this group that he uses 1\8 and 5\32 rods to weld an entire boat? martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gary.lucas@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:55:10 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Martin, > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way > down to 2 amps! > > Gary H. Lucas > > -----Original Message----- > From: martin demers > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:42 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > I find it difficult to weld 1\8in steel with 1\8 rod, > also I seem to have more sucess with 7018 rod than with 6011. > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:56 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for > overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We > have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in > extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in > > this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the > > designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all > > > economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building > > > methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. > > > > It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very > > > > limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he > > > > teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, > > > > another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be > > > > used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas > > > > shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined > > > > recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already > > > > proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the > > > > project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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]| 26739|26545|2011-10-14 21:16:41|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Basic welding questions (off topick)|Wild, You hit the nail on the head, the smaller rod is even harder to control. A 1/16” rod has only 1/4 the mass of a 1/8” rod. So it burns away faster, meaning you have to feed it in faster to compensate. Using lower current makes it harder to maintain the arc, and the puddle is much smaller, so your hand eye coordination needs to be much better. I find 3/32” rod to be about the minimum you can weld with easily. 3/32” has a little more than half the mass of a 1/8” rod, so that is not too big a difference. Gary H. Lucas From: wild_explorer Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 12:23 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions (off topick) I tried to practice with 1/16 E6013 rod @ 30-35A (for thin metal welding). Very hard! It burns quickly and require more precise coordination to feed the rod and maintain the arc's gap. That why (I think) it easier for a beginner as me to weld with bigger rod size. I could not weld very well 1/16 small piece of plate to larger 3/16 with 1/16 rod (it was easy to brake a weld). Weld with 1/8 rod was much stronger (compare by the same deposited metal amount). It is probably better just to get as good as possible with electrode type and size you choose ;) --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, Wally Paine wrote: > > It maybe a silly question: Why not simply use a thinner rod? At least until one has sufficient practise to easily handle the thicker one? > > Cheers, > > Wally Paine > > > ________________________________ > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:55 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Martin, > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way > down to 2 amps! > > Gary H. Lucas > Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26740|26545|2011-10-15 00:40:06|Aaron|Re: Basic welding questions|Yep From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:28 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions   Gary, Didn't Brent mentioned in his book or in this group that he uses 1\8 and 5\32 rods to weld an entire boat? martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gary.lucas@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:55:10 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Martin, > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way > down to 2 amps! > > Gary H. Lucas > > -----Original Message----- > From: martin demers > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:42 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > I find it difficult to weld 1\8in steel with 1\8 rod, > also I seem to have more sucess with 7018 rod than with 6011. > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:56 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for > overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We > have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in > extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in > > this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the > > designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all > > > economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building > > > methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. > > > > It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very > > > > limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he > > > > teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, > > > > another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be > > > > used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas > > > > shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined > > > > recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already > > > > proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the > > > > project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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]| 26741|26545|2011-10-15 06:05:36|Wally Paine|Re: Basic welding questions (off topick)|Well that is that questioned answered  and explained. Thanks.  Cheers, Wally Paine ________________________________ From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2011, 2:17 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions (off topick)   Wild, You hit the nail on the head, the smaller rod is even harder to control. A 1/16” rod has only 1/4 the mass of a 1/8” rod. So it burns away faster, meaning you have to feed it in faster to compensate. Using lower current makes it harder to maintain the arc, and the puddle is much smaller, so your hand eye coordination needs to be much better. I find 3/32” rod to be about the minimum you can weld with easily. 3/32” has a little more than half the mass of a 1/8” rod, so that is not too big a difference. Gary H. Lucas From: wild_explorer Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 12:23 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions (off topick) I tried to practice with 1/16 E6013 rod @ 30-35A (for thin metal welding). Very hard! It burns quickly and require more precise coordination to feed the rod and maintain the arc's gap. That why (I think) it easier for a beginner as me to weld with bigger rod size. I could not weld very well 1/16 small piece of plate to larger 3/16 with 1/16 rod (it was easy to brake a weld). Weld with 1/8 rod was much stronger (compare by the same deposited metal amount). It is probably better just to get as good as possible with electrode type and size you choose ;) --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, Wally Paine wrote: > > It maybe a silly question: Why not simply use a thinner rod? At least until one has sufficient practise to easily handle the thicker one? > > Cheers, > > Wally Paine > > > ________________________________ > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:55 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > Martin, > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way > down to 2 amps! > > Gary H. Lucas > Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26742|26545|2011-10-15 14:45:10|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions (off topick)|I find it much easier to weld 16 gauge with 3 /32 rod than with 1/16th rod. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Wild, > You hit the nail on the head, the smaller rod is even harder to control. A 1/16” rod has only 1/4 the mass of a 1/8” rod. So it burns away faster, meaning you have to feed it in faster to compensate. Using lower current makes it harder to maintain the arc, and the puddle is much smaller, so your hand eye coordination needs to be much better. I find 3/32” rod to be about the minimum you can weld with easily. 3/32” has a little more than half the mass of a 1/8” rod, so that is not too big a difference. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: wild_explorer > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 12:23 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions (off topick) > > > I tried to practice with 1/16 E6013 rod @ 30-35A (for thin metal welding). Very hard! It burns quickly and require more precise coordination to feed the rod and maintain the arc's gap. That why (I think) it easier for a beginner as me to weld with bigger rod size. I could not weld very well 1/16 small piece of plate to larger 3/16 with 1/16 rod (it was easy to brake a weld). Weld with 1/8 rod was much stronger (compare by the same deposited metal amount). > > It is probably better just to get as good as possible with electrode type and size you choose ;) > > --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, Wally Paine wrote: > > > > It maybe a silly question: Why not simply use a thinner rod? At least until one has sufficient practise to easily handle the thicker one? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Wally Paine > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Gary H. Lucas > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:55 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > Martin, > > 1/8" with 1/8" rod is quite tough, because you need so much heat just to > > melt the rod. The 7018 works better on that gauge because it burns cooler. > > 1/8" also warps quickly as you are welding, so it is difficult have a good > > joint shape and size. The welding also goes really fast, you don't have > > time to think, just time to do. So you'll find it gets easier after you > > have enough experience where your brain is no longer forcing your hands to > > do the right thing. Thin materials are where Tig and Mig shine. You can > > easily weld 18 ga. muffler pipe with a Mig machine. Tig goes all the way > > down to 2 amps! > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26743|26743|2011-10-16 09:05:20|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|anodes performance|Brent, if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? Martin.| 26744|26744|2011-10-16 09:09:53|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks|I am now fixing some problems with my keel(sandblasting inside, weld some dents) and someone suggested me to use ''Nauta'' flexible fuel tank inside my keel , I had a quick look in some catalogs, they are quite expensive, anyone with experience with flexible tanks? any advantages? Martin.| 26745|26369|2011-10-16 09:16:49|martin demers|Re: mast location|Wild, There is a mast location, on my boat, but nothing can confirm that it is the exact location and that it had not been change place. My boat is quite unique, homebuilt almost, similar to some other plans but not the same. I have only 1 blue print and it does not show enough, by the way I found those plans you asked me before... Like it had been posted before; sea trial, if it works well, you leave it there, if not you move your mast to another position... Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:13:27 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location Martin, Your boat should have some visible mast location (where original mast was)... Right? If boat is not unique (several were built) you can ask others owners about original mast/masts (location, length) and sailsplan your boat had. It will be very useful to know original configuration of the boat if you plan to make changes. May be after learning original configuration you might change your mind about making changes ;) Same may apply to skeg and rudder. If this information is not available, you might try to use what sailboat modelers do - use all kind of experiments and tricks to find right mast location. It does not cost much for a model, but will be expensive on full size boat. P.S. Where are the pictures of your boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Wild, ask Brent about the reason to move the rudder more aft, you will see why I am doing it. > > I dont have any precise sail plan yet ; there where no mast with my boat when I bought it, so many options are possible ... > > At nearly 20,000 lbs. will a skeg and rudder installed more aft on my boat will have such big influence? > > Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26746|26744|2011-10-16 11:32:39|Gord Schnell|Re: fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks|You will still need to coat (paint) the inside to the keel or condensation will rust it out. Gord On 2011-10-16, at 6:09 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > I am now fixing some problems with my keel(sandblasting inside, weld some dents) and someone suggested me to use ''Nauta'' flexible fuel tank inside my keel , > I had a quick look in some catalogs, they are quite expensive, > > anyone with experience with flexible tanks? > any advantages? > > Martin. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26747|26743|2011-10-16 13:36:35|martin demers|Re: minimum temperature for painting|Brent, I know that in your book you mention the ideal condition to paint the boat is under warm and dry weather, but temperature becoming more cold now at night, what is the coldest temp. to apply zinc primer and coal tar epoxy to assure proper time to dry. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:04:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] anodes performance Brent, if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26748|26743|2011-10-16 14:06:43|Mark Hamill|Re: minimum temperature for painting|Martin: The paint chemist for Vancouver Island or BC will be happy to answer your questions at Cloverdale or so I have found. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "martin demers" To: Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] minimum temperature for painting > > Brent, > > I know that in your book you mention the ideal condition to paint the boat > is under warm and dry weather, > but temperature becoming more cold now at night, what is the coldest > temp. to apply zinc primer and coal tar epoxy to assure proper time to > dry. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:04:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] anodes performance > > > > > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for > the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > 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 > > > | 26749|26743|2011-10-16 14:36:41|martin demers|Re: minimum temperature for painting|Mark, BC is a bit cooler in summer than Quebec, they might tell me some tricks I dont know... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mhamill1@... Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:04:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] minimum temperature for painting Martin: The paint chemist for Vancouver Island or BC will be happy to answer your questions at Cloverdale or so I have found. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "martin demers" To: Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] minimum temperature for painting > > Brent, > > I know that in your book you mention the ideal condition to paint the boat > is under warm and dry weather, > but temperature becoming more cold now at night, what is the coldest > temp. to apply zinc primer and coal tar epoxy to assure proper time to > dry. > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:04:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] anodes performance > > > > > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for > the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > 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] | 26750|26750|2011-10-16 15:33:24|Bob|Mast sail track|What type sail track are builders using for the mast? I am building the 36 footer with steel tube mast. And still having fun building . I was looking at T track or is this just for particular purpose such as travelers and genoa tracks? Bob Meade Leesburg FL| 26751|26580|2011-10-16 16:16:22|martin demers|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top|wy dont we simply make the skeg a little longer, pass it thrue the hull and weld it inside and outside the boat, brace it on both it's side inside the boat. wouldn't it be stronger? Martin. Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:17:26 -0700 From: brentswain38@... Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top To: mdemers2005@... Martin I see no problem with your skeg. I moved the rudder much further than that on my first boat and it had little effect on balance going to windward , but was a huge improvement in downwind control . Sharpening up the trailing edge of your keel will reduce drag a bit. Make sure it is well tied into the hull, as skeg failures on steel boats are all too common. Brent --- On Tue, 10/11/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top To: brentswain38@... Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 6:13 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:59:38 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top Don't see the picture --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > Here is picture of my boat, > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > > > > > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > You could raise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26752|26545|2011-10-17 07:43:40|Ralph|Re: Basic welding questions|Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. Thank you --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > | 26753|26545|2011-10-17 08:22:09|Ralph|Re: Basic welding questions|Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. Thank you --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > Thank you > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 26754|26545|2011-10-17 08:38:20|James Pronk|Re: Basic welding questions|I might be wrong but I think the 7024 is being used because of how easy it is to weld on the flat, which makes it fast and it gives you nice looking welds. Is you wiring heavy enough to install a bigger breaker? James --- On Mon, 10/17/11, Ralph wrote: From: Ralph Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, October 17, 2011, 8:22 AM   Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. Thank you --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > Thank you > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26755|26750|2011-10-17 10:33:24|Aaron|Re: Mast sail track|Bob   You should be able to get the track from Dons marine salvage down in Clearwater. Look on Ebay for Sailboat Booms or Mast there may be someone else closer to you. Aaron From: Bob To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:33 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Mast sail track   What type sail track are builders using for the mast? I am building the 36 footer with steel tube mast. And still having fun building . I was looking at T track or is this just for particular purpose such as travelers and genoa tracks? Bob Meade Leesburg FL [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26756|26743|2011-10-17 15:39:12|brentswain38|Re: anodes performance|The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > Martin. > | 26757|26750|2011-10-17 15:42:07|brentswain38|Re: Mast sail track|Most use the extruded aluminium track, with flanges on the outside to take the screws, so you can screw it on without worrying about a screw coming loose and jamming the slides. Bob, how 's progress on your boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" wrote: > > What type sail track are builders using for the mast? > I am building the 36 footer with steel tube mast. > And still having fun building . > I was looking at T track or is this just for particular purpose such as travelers and genoa tracks? > > Bob Meade > Leesburg FL > | 26758|26580|2011-10-17 15:44:48|brentswain38|Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top|That's an excellent way if doing it , and probably the only way to make a high aspect ratio skeg strong enough. Running it right into the cockpit sole is the strongest way of doing it, eliminating the need for any further structural material inside. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > wy dont we simply make the skeg a little longer, pass it thrue the hull and weld it inside and outside the boat, brace it on both it's side inside the boat. > wouldn't it be stronger? > > Martin. > > > > > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:17:26 -0700 > From: brentswain38@... > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > To: mdemers2005@... > > > > > > Martin > I see no problem with your skeg. I moved the rudder much further than that on my first boat and it had little effect on balance going to windward , but was a huge improvement in downwind control . Sharpening up the trailing edge of your keel will reduce drag a bit. Make sure it is well tied into the hull, as skeg failures on steel boats are all too common. > Brent > > --- On Tue, 10/11/11, martin demers wrote: > > > From: martin demers > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > To: brentswain38@... > Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 6:13 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:59:38 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS Pilothouse top > > > > > Don't see the picture > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > Here is picture of my boat, > > how much more maximum would you raise the pilot house from where it is now? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:10:16 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boom height VS pilothouse top > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find 14 inches above the cabin top to be plenty, unless the boat has a lot of sheer. > > I prefer the galley in the pilothouse, so when short handed I can still cook while seeing where I am going. > > One guy with a 36, cut the wheelhouse off, because he didn't like the look of it. When leaving Suva , he put her on course, then quickly dropped below to make a sandwich.. The boat wandered off course and pounded across three hundred yards of coral reef. It cost him $5,000 to hire a tug to drag him back. No serious damage. > > He hit the reef because he cut the wheelhouse off, and couldn't see where he was going from the galley. He hadn't planned on single handing, but we all eventually end up doing it. > > You could raise > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26759|26545|2011-10-17 15:50:07|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|No problem using 6011 for the works.7024 is simply faster and smoother. I'd use 5/32 for the decks. Welding the underside of the decks in the bow can cause oil canning. 1/8th 7024 puts more metal down in a single pass than the thickness of the 3mm decks, making welding the underside unnecessary. A bigger breaker, at least 45 or 50 amps, would solve the problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > Thank you > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 26760|26743|2011-10-17 15:54:31|mauro gonzaga|Re: anodes performance|unpainted? What about antifouling? Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:39 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance   The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26761|26761|2011-10-17 15:56:25|brentswain38|Inside painting|A friend bought one of my 36 footers which was 28 years old. He found the foam inside stuck well to the paint, but the paint had come away form the steel. I believe this was because the owner hadn't cleaned the steel of welding smoke before painting the inside. He had paint fall off his chines for the same reason. Before painting the hull, the primer should be thoroughly washed , inside and out, with TSP , and with vinegar in the case of zinc primer , then rinsed with fresh water, and allowed to dry thoroughly, before applying epoxy or Wasser tar.| 26762|26545|2011-10-17 16:04:28|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Ralph, What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) Is there anything else on the circuit ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: dejongralph@... Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. Thank you --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > Thank you > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26763|26743|2011-10-17 16:29:12|Paul Wilson|Re: anodes performance|I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Brent, > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > Martin. > > > > | 26764|26743|2011-10-17 16:46:44|martin demers|Re: anodes performance|the reason I asked is if I'd have enough time to bring my boat south and finish the sandblasting and painting down there. Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:03 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > 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]| 26765|26744|2011-10-17 16:51:10|martin demers|Re: fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks|I had a quick check in marine catalogs, those flexible tanks are quite expensive. If I install one in each of my keel section, it will cost around $2000.00. I'll stick to my first idea and use the keel as a tank... Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gschnell@... > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:32:38 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks > > You will still need to coat (paint) the inside to the keel or condensation will rust it out. > Gord > > On 2011-10-16, at 6:09 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > > I am now fixing some problems with my keel(sandblasting inside, weld some dents) and someone suggested me to use ''Nauta'' flexible fuel tank inside my keel , > > I had a quick look in some catalogs, they are quite expensive, > > > > anyone with experience with flexible tanks? > > any advantages? > > > > 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]| 26766|26676|2011-10-17 16:54:00|martin demers|Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|Brent, have you ever notice, in your fuel tank, if any epoxy came of? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:58:49 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning I once had a bare steel diesel tank. It corroded on the top which was not covered by diesel. One can't rely on the tank being full all the time. Some condensation can do the same to the bottom. Since then I have always coated my tanks with epoxy tar, no problems. I put a long, tubular screen on the pickup, so if any epoxy comes loose, it will stay in the tank, and not get into any hoses. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > hello Brent, > > > I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. > I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? > and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26767|26369|2011-10-17 17:08:13|martin demers|Re: mast location|Brent, you made me think, my boat might look better if I cut one foot or two of overhang and weld the transom toward the front instead aft. And I''ll save dome weigh like you said. But could those long overhang on those classic shape sailboat have any purpose specialy in a rough sea? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26768|26743|2011-10-17 18:36:59|martin demers|Re: anodes performance|my idea was for a temporary use, a few weeks travel to warmer climate then paint the boat. Martin, in cold Canada. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:54:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance unpainted? What about antifouling? Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:39 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26769|26743|2011-10-18 13:38:14|mauro gonzaga|Re: anodes performance|Get informed on how sea weed and barnacles grow where you are going or be prepared to dive with scraper and brush. Mauro ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:36 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance my idea was for a temporary use, a few weeks travel to warmer climate  then paint the boat. Martin, in cold Canada. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:54:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance   unpainted? What about antifouling? Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:39 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance   The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > Martin. > [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] | 26770|26743|2011-10-18 13:53:50|martin demers|Re: anodes performance|how long could it take before there is a real thick layer of them? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:32:35 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance Get informed on how sea weed and barnacles grow where you are going or be prepared to dive with scraper and brush. Mauro ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:36 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance my idea was for a temporary use, a few weeks travel to warmer climate then paint the boat. Martin, in cold Canada. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:54:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance unpainted? What about antifouling? Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:39 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > Martin. > [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] | 26771|26771|2011-10-18 19:00:00|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|rudder size|Brent, my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was Martin.| 26772|26771|2011-10-18 21:42:12|brentswain38|Re: rudder size|How big a boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > Martin. > | 26773|26743|2011-10-18 21:44:39|brentswain38|Re: anodes performance|Yes . Just above the waterline, in the splash zone, is the worst place for corrosion.Too high for the zincs to protect it, and plenty of salt water and oxygen on it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > | 26774|26743|2011-10-18 21:49:13|brentswain38|Re: anodes performance|I once met a guy in Nelson New Zealand who had built a 36 ft Matangi motor sailor in Australia , then found out sand blasting was much cheaper in New Zealand. So he rigged her and sailed her,all bare rusty steel, across the Tasman to New Zealand, no problem. It is a 1400 mile passage. I don't think you would have a problem, in less than a month. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the reason I asked is if I'd have enough time to bring my boat south and finish the sandblasting and painting down there. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: opusnz@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:03 +1300 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > > > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > > > 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] > | 26775|26744|2011-10-18 21:50:35|brentswain38|Re: fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks|Flex tanks can have a chafing problem at sea. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I had a quick check in marine catalogs, those flexible tanks are quite expensive. > If I install one in each of my keel section, it will cost around $2000.00. > I'll stick to my first idea and use the keel as a tank... > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: gschnell@... > > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:32:38 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] fuel tank in the keel VS flexible tanks > > > > You will still need to coat (paint) the inside to the keel or condensation will rust it out. > > Gord > > > > On 2011-10-16, at 6:09 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I am now fixing some problems with my keel(sandblasting inside, weld some dents) and someone suggested me to use ''Nauta'' flexible fuel tank inside my keel , > > > I had a quick look in some catalogs, they are quite expensive, > > > > > > anyone with experience with flexible tanks? > > > any advantages? > > > > > > 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] > | 26776|26771|2011-10-18 21:51:13|Matt Malone|Re: rudder size|That is a little smaller than the rudder on my 42. It may be 35 inches at the bottom. It is a full keel/attached rudder. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size How big a boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26777|26676|2011-10-18 21:51:47|brentswain38|Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning|I haven't seen any come off, or heard of such a problem. If a long screen is on your pickup pipe, in the tank , it cant get into the fuel line if it does come off. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > have you ever notice, in your fuel tank, if any epoxy came of? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:58:49 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel fuel tank coating and rust cleaning > > > > > > I once had a bare steel diesel tank. It corroded on the top which was not covered by diesel. One can't rely on the tank being full all the time. Some condensation can do the same to the bottom. Since then I have always coated my tanks with epoxy tar, no problems. > I put a long, tubular screen on the pickup, so if any epoxy comes loose, it will stay in the tank, and not get into any hoses. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > hello Brent, > > > > > > I am now straightening the sides of my full keel(probably had some ice who froze inside before I bought the boat) and will sandblast the inside wich I will use as a fuel tank. > > I presume it has to be very clean if fuel is to be stored in there? > > and does it has to be coated or left on bare metal? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26778|26369|2011-10-18 21:53:20|brentswain38|Re: mast location|Excessively long overhangs are strictly decorative, and serve no useful purpose. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > you made me think, my boat might look better if I cut one foot or two of overhang and weld the transom toward the front instead aft. And I''ll save dome weigh like you said. > But could those long overhang on those classic shape sailboat have any purpose specialy in a rough sea? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > | 26779|26369|2011-10-18 21:54:35|brentswain38|Re: mast location|You only need enough overhang to let your boom clear your backstay in a gybe. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Excessively long overhangs are strictly decorative, and serve no useful purpose. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > you made me think, my boat might look better if I cut one foot or two of overhang and weld the transom toward the front instead aft. And I''ll save dome weigh like you said. > > But could those long overhang on those classic shape sailboat have any purpose specialy in a rough sea? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:10:47 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't need that long overhang to get your backstay to clear the boom , knocking a bit off the overhang will reduce the weight in the stern, far more than the weight of the skeg and rudder, given how much further aft the stern weight is. Multiply weight by it's distance from the LCB to get a comparison in ft lbs. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > the skeg being made of 3/16in steel is quite heavy, having lift it myself before welding it to the boat I would estimate it at between 200lbs and 250lbs plus the weight of the rudder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:01:59 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A full keel is much heavier than a skeg and rudder. Don't worry about it. It probably weighs far less than a crew member in the cockpit. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it. One fat crewmember sitting aft would weigh far more than a rudder and skeg > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the section on ''balance'' in your book and I now have another concern; it is regarding the skeg on my boat. When I asked you where to locate the skeg on my boat, I asked if it was ok to weld it at the rear end of water line and the rudder aft of it, and you said it was ok > > > > > > . In the balance section , you mention that a full keel boat could be too heavy for the aft section of the sailboat . So I am now concern about the weight of my skeg and rudder on the aft of my boat, my boat being a classic and having a long aft overhang. > > > > > > Am I worry for nothing, is a full keel on a steel sailboat a lot heavier than a skeg and rudder? > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:28:08 +0000 > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read the section on "Balance" in my book. Traditional methods assume that a well rounded forefoot has the same lateral resistance as a keel, which makes then grossly inaccurate. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think windsurfing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulling back on the windsurfer mast brings the sails center of effort towards the stern turning the craft towards the wind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushing the windsurfer mast forward moves the sails center of effort forward and turns the craft downwind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you be rudderless (as a windsurfer is) this may get you home as you can add and subtract sails top steer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > So a scale drawing of the boat complete with sails and keel(s) on card can be used to: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find the center of efforts for (1) sails (2) keels(s) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the sails center of effort of the keel is forward compared to the sails.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.sailingusa.info/sailboat_balance.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > | 26780|26771|2011-10-18 21:56:27|martin demers|Re: rudder size|the steel classic I send you the picture with the aft overhang, 37 ft long. Martin To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size How big a boat? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26781|26771|2011-10-18 22:04:19|martin demers|Re: rudder size|Matt, my boat is 37 ft 18,000lbs with long overhang, so might not be a real 37ft compare to another boat same lenght. I made my rudder according to the original one on my boat wich was like yours keel- attached. Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:51:11 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > That is a little smaller than the rudder on my 42. It may be 35 inches at the bottom. It is a full keel/attached rudder. > > Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How big a boat? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > > > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > > > > > 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]| 26782|26743|2011-10-19 07:41:37|James Pronk|Re: anodes performance|Could you put a coat of cheap house paint on the bottom and around the waterline? How hard would it be to sandblast it off. Would it be to much trouble? James  --- On Tue, 10/18/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 9:49 PM   I once met a guy in Nelson New Zealand who had built a 36 ft Matangi motor sailor in Australia , then found out sand blasting was much cheaper in New Zealand. So he rigged her and sailed her,all bare rusty steel, across the Tasman to New Zealand, no problem. It is a 1400 mile passage. I don't think you would have a problem, in less than a month. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the reason I asked is if I'd have enough time to bring my boat south and finish the sandblasting and painting down there. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: opusnz@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:03 +1300 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > > > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > > > 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] | 26783|26743|2011-10-19 09:58:29|Matt Malone|"The Cove" is On-line|There are many ocean issues, and many films, this is just one. It is worth watching. The Cove http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=2155156233 If anyone has a link to a film/documentary about BC shellfish or salmon farms, or Gulf ocean health post-BP, I would be interested in seeing it. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26784|26784|2011-10-19 11:09:33|Aaron|Origami Sailboat|Joe I think I lost your day time contact number I am comming up today and should be able to come over this afternoon Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26785|26743|2011-10-19 11:53:09|James Pronk|Re: "The Cove" is On-line|Thank you for the link Matt, James --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: [origamiboats] "The Cove" is On-line To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 9:58 AM   There are many ocean issues, and many films, this is just one. It is worth watching. The Cove http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=2155156233 If anyone has a link to a film/documentary about BC shellfish or salmon farms, or Gulf ocean health post-BP, I would be interested in seeing it. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26786|26545|2011-10-19 13:12:12|Ralph|Re: Basic welding questions|Thank you Brent for your answer, it makes me happy. Matt, I'm using a Kemppi Miniarc 150. My house has 230V and my breakers are 16 amps, I could upgrade it to 20. None of the plugs on your drawing look like mine. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ralph, > > What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? > > http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg > > Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? > > Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) > > Is there anything else on the circuit ? > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: dejongralph@... > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > Thank you > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26787|26545|2011-10-19 14:58:08|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Hi Ralph, Wow, that is new to me. I have looked up "Kemppi Miniarc" and the "Schuko" plug style, and concluded, you are not on North American current -- I should have guessed that given what you were welding, and the likely currents. I do not know as much about typical electrical systems there, and in particular non-North American regulations. The specs say your welder draws the full 16 A, so, if there is anything, even a work light on the same circuit, then it will pop. The power factor on that unit is awful at 0.6. If you have smart metering, you might end up paying for 24 Amps of power, when you are only using 16 Amps. Also, not sure what the duty cycle on that unit is, i.e. what fraction of the time can it produce how much current. After fixing the home circuits, you may find it welds only a little longer before the machine suspends the current on its internal breaker, to avoid thermal overload. As the unit is only 4 kilograms (!!! mine is about 40 kg !!!), one could easily take it down the street to an automotive garage and ask to test your welder there on one of their plugs they plug heavy tools into. You would find out pretty quickly if the welder would simply like a higher Amp circuit like theirs and would know what to change/what you need in your house. First step is to make sure there is nothing else on the circuit / run a dedicated line. I think an electrician can give you a dedicated plug for this, and perhaps something like 20 Amps breaker / wire / plug, but I am not certain how you would plug a 16 A plug into a 20 A outlet -- around here the pins are different for different currents, so you can't plug the wrong thing in the wrong plug. The electrician might be able to help you with that too. 230V /16A branch circuits are pretty capable, so some of what we would consider large appliances might just plug into a regular plug, be on a regular circuit for you. Still, there have to be standards and plugs for heavier appliances, like electric stoves and perhaps air conditioners there so there must be some hookup scheme that would be "normal" in a home that would accommodate your welder. Depending on local regulations, and your own experience doing electrical, you might be able to add the necessary circuit yourself. Where I am, I can do wiring in my own house, I just need to get it inspected by the electrical authority afterward. It is just a matter of doing some rewiring in your house, definitely fixable, just not sure what the right way to do it is there. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: dejongralph@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:12:10 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions Thank you Brent for your answer, it makes me happy. Matt, I'm using a Kemppi Miniarc 150. My house has 230V and my breakers are 16 amps, I could upgrade it to 20. None of the plugs on your drawing look like mine. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ralph, > > What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? > > http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg > > Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? > > Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) > > Is there anything else on the circuit ? > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: dejongralph@... > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > Thank you > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26788|26743|2011-10-19 15:28:12|martin demers|Re: anodes performance|I want to use my boat soon, and cold weather is coming fast, sandblasting should not be a problem where the boat is located, but once it is done I'll need to paint the boat right away. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:41:35 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance Could you put a coat of cheap house paint on the bottom and around the waterline? How hard would it be to sandblast it off. Would it be to much trouble? James --- On Tue, 10/18/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 9:49 PM I once met a guy in Nelson New Zealand who had built a 36 ft Matangi motor sailor in Australia , then found out sand blasting was much cheaper in New Zealand. So he rigged her and sailed her,all bare rusty steel, across the Tasman to New Zealand, no problem. It is a 1400 mile passage. I don't think you would have a problem, in less than a month. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the reason I asked is if I'd have enough time to bring my boat south and finish the sandblasting and painting down there. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: opusnz@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:03 +1300 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > > > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > > > 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26789|26771|2011-10-19 19:17:37|brentswain38|Re: rudder size|4 ft deep is plenty. Easy to shorten it a bit. Length could be slightly less but not worth the trouble of changing it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Matt, > > my boat is 37 ft 18,000lbs with long overhang, so might not be a real 37ft compare to another boat same lenght. > I made my rudder according to the original one on my boat wich was like yours keel- attached. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: m_j_malone@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:51:11 -0400 > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > That is a little smaller than the rudder on my 42. It may be 35 inches at the bottom. It is a full keel/attached rudder. > > > > Matt > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How big a boat? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > > > > > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > > > > > > > > > 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] > | 26790|26545|2011-10-19 19:22:46|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|Ralph I was sent the article in the Dutch paper about your boat. Looks like you are making good progress. Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted it, before I could get a translation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > Thank you Brent for your answer, it makes me happy. > > Matt, > I'm using a Kemppi Miniarc 150. My house has 230V and my breakers are 16 amps, I could upgrade it to 20. None of the plugs on your drawing look like mine. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Ralph, > > > > What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? > > > > http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg > > > > Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? > > > > Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) > > > > Is there anything else on the circuit ? > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: dejongralph@ > > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > > > > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > > > > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > > > > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26791|26771|2011-10-19 20:36:33|martin demers|Re: rudder size|OK thanks, I will probably finish install it friday. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:17:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size 4 ft deep is plenty. Easy to shorten it a bit. Length could be slightly less but not worth the trouble of changing it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Matt, > > my boat is 37 ft 18,000lbs with long overhang, so might not be a real 37ft compare to another boat same lenght. > I made my rudder according to the original one on my boat wich was like yours keel- attached. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: m_j_malone@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:51:11 -0400 > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > That is a little smaller than the rudder on my 42. It may be 35 inches at the bottom. It is a full keel/attached rudder. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How big a boat? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > > > > > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > > > > > > > > > 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] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26792|26771|2011-10-19 21:01:09|martin demers|Re: rudder size|from what I saw on the pictures at the end of your book and in the photo album I thought the rudder on your BS36 keeled boat was about 5 ft deep... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:17:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size 4 ft deep is plenty. Easy to shorten it a bit. Length could be slightly less but not worth the trouble of changing it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Matt, > > my boat is 37 ft 18,000lbs with long overhang, so might not be a real 37ft compare to another boat same lenght. > I made my rudder according to the original one on my boat wich was like yours keel- attached. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: m_j_malone@... > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:51:11 -0400 > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > That is a little smaller than the rudder on my 42. It may be 35 inches at the bottom. It is a full keel/attached rudder. > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:42:09 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rudder size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How big a boat? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > my rudder being almost made, but still time to make some modifications, > > > > > I fear it could be to big and be hard to steer,here are it's mesurements; 5ft high by 17 in. long at the top and 27 in. long at the bottom. I was thinking,that now the rudder being moved aft,maybe it doesn't need to be as big as the old one was > > > > > > > > > > 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] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26793|26545|2011-10-19 22:12:59|James Pronk|Re: Basic welding questions|Do you have an electric stove? What kind of breaker does that have? --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Ralph wrote: From: Ralph Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 1:12 PM   Thank you Brent for your answer, it makes me happy. Matt, I'm using a Kemppi Miniarc 150. My house has 230V and my breakers are 16 amps, I could upgrade it to 20. None of the plugs on your drawing look like mine. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ralph, > > What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? > > http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg > > Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? > > Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) > > Is there anything else on the circuit ? > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: dejongralph@... > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > Thank you > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26794|26545|2011-10-20 03:54:11|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe|I am not a licensed electrician, but have done and managed installations upto 35 kW / 3phase, with inspections and certificates, here in Europe. In europe, all plugs are the same (within the country), basically. These go upto 3 kW, or 25 amps at 220 V. They are electrically safe upto 4 kW, ie nothing will melt or break with a 4 kW load (new installations). Mostly, everything in europe is 220-240 V, and upto the same 25 amps. We never have split phasing like the 110 / 110 for 220 in the US, it just never happens. For large loads, like an electric range (2-3 kW), the loads are wired directly to the house panel, no plugs are involved. GFIs are always used. The main panel has a cut off switch (magnetic) and a GFI, both as masters (ie for the whole electrical service), usually at about 400-600V and whatever amps are needed (Spain). All major appliances like those meant meant for industrial use mandate putting a GFI within 3 metres of the tool. This would not be a drill press, but my 2.2 kW steel light industrial table saw, at 70 kg mass, would be one of those. Even faily big welders can be plugged in anywhere, to a normal 20/25 amp line, and run fine. In a house, lines are usually 16, 20, or 25 amps. The 25 is less common, and is reserved for "heavy appliances". These would be anything with a heavier load, dishwasher, portable oven/stove, pottery kiln (small), etc. One is usually set up for a kitchen, with plugs, and maybe another for example in a garage, if you have one. A sauna for example is wired directly, with special cable for the internal part (moisture proof). Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring maybe as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ years old, in southern europe. Today, new instalalitons start at 7.5 kW and go up to 20 kW (houses). I have a 30 kW main service, with a 400 V 3-phase branch circuit (house with workshop). My bigger welder, a chicom inverter, goes upto 240 amps, and runs just fine from any plug in the house or workshop, even with an extension cord. The welder is about 6-7 kg in mass, the small 200 amp chicom inverter is about 5-6 amps, and produces similar excellent results. I have a big, 4 kW, extension cord but do not bother with it on the welder, and use just a normal 2 kW 4-plug 10 m rollable cord with no ill effects. Note I can, and do, weld heavy 4.5 mm thick 7018 rod, with excellent results, when making heavier steel assemblies, using this extension and welder. Adding extra 25 amp service lines is fairly simple, and should be painless but legally must be finished, inspected or signed off by an electrician. In practice, the local "sparky" does it, and you pay cash. This is lamentable, but is what it is. Spain: Recent law changes made it possible for more installations to be done by non-gradute but experienced electricians. You need to declare yourself an electrician, and competent, at the town hall, and will be legally resposible for any faults in installations. This allows for example immigrants from south america, who may have been electricians, with licenses, to practice the trade here. For example, I could declare myself an electrician, and start signing off on (small) installations. I don´t, as I don´t work in the trades, but it would be possible. I myself actually am trained in most of this stuff, as I was once a mechanic courtesy of Finnish Air Force technical school, and we learned just about anything practical. I don´t need the liability, and when high power is required, I usually pay (not a lot) and someone in the trades does the final hook-up. The development is very good, as the costs over here were high with no responsibility and no real civil liability for anyone. I mean that to sign off on an electrical plan (upgrade over 10 kW, commercial) cost 10.000€ / 13.000$, and that was just for the plan, not work or installation, or material. Just a stamp from an electrical engineer, who keeps the money himself. You then paid for the (mandatory) inspection separately, as well as materials and work (about 12.000€ / 18.000$ for 35 kW, 12-16 GFIs). This was guild-based extortion, pure and simple. Northern europe is different, with unversally high standards and quality throughout. In scandinavia, the plugs are all shuko, with no differenciation re: power.| 26795|26545|2011-10-20 10:04:08|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe|Ralph, The important part to take out of that last one from Hanermo is: >>Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring >>maybe as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ >>years old, in southern europe. Southern Europe is not the only place with some pretty old and meager wire in the walls. The only reason it has not caused a fire in 50 years is, it has never had a welder plugged into it, until now. Watch out for old branch circuits that were (illegally) extended by splicing into an existing outlet / light / junction box. All these connections are potential problems when you draw high currents from end to end. I have seen homes with an impressive array of panels, but, when it comes down to it, 75% of the house runs from 2 breakers -- often the ones that the basement ceiling light fixtures are on, because these were typically easiest to access and tap into for a new plug on the main floor when the house was "remodeled" and sold at a tremendous profit. Some of these houses are 20-30 years old, in nice, prosperous, modern-looking subdivisions in Canada and the US. I am convinced that extension cords are standard wiring in every little old lady's house. My grandmother had only 4 outlets in her entire house. Then I have seen extreme cases where people actually cut the plugs off 16 or 18 gauge extension cord, and pull that through the walls to add an outlet. Unless you saw the wire go in the wall, be careful about putting it to any new, high current use. I see all the worst cases, that actually have started fires, so, my perspective on how common it is might be off, but I know inadequate wiring exists in pretty much every area. The wire in the wall may not be up to the task of a 20 Amp circuit, so, changing the breaker / fuse to 20 Amp, without checking anything else could potentially cause a fire. Get the wiring checked by someone qualified, to see what you have, someone who can lay their eyes on the situation -- not verbal and internet advise. Better yet, get someone to run a dedicated new wire from a new breaker to a new plug for your welder and whatever other tools you want to run in the area. It is legal where I am to install a "pony panel" in an outbuilding, run from one breaker in the house. So one big cable comes from the house, underground to the garage, to this panel. This pony panel then has a few breakers for a few branch circuits. That is where my welder plugs in, to a breaker and plug off this pony panel. I also have 3 duplex outlets, one split duplex outlet, and lights in my garage. For my garage with a 60 A service, I think my cable was a #6 gauge x 4 wires. Pulling that one big cable to the garage, and digging the trench is a little work, but once the pony panel is in, adding branch circuits is easy. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gcode.fi@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:53:49 +0200 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe > > I am not a licensed electrician, but have done and managed installations > upto 35 kW / 3phase, with inspections and certificates, here in Europe. > > In europe, all plugs are the same (within the country), basically. > These go upto 3 kW, or 25 amps at 220 V. > They are electrically safe upto 4 kW, ie nothing will melt or break with > a 4 kW load (new installations). > > Mostly, everything in europe is 220-240 V, and upto the same 25 amps. > We never have split phasing like the 110 / 110 for 220 in the US, it > just never happens. > > For large loads, like an electric range (2-3 kW), the loads are wired > directly to the house panel, no plugs are involved. > GFIs are always used. > > The main panel has a cut off switch (magnetic) and a GFI, both as > masters (ie for the whole electrical service), usually at about 400-600V > and whatever amps are needed (Spain). > > All major appliances like those meant meant for industrial use mandate > putting a GFI within 3 metres of the tool. > This would not be a drill press, but my 2.2 kW steel light industrial > table saw, at 70 kg mass, would be one of those. > > Even faily big welders can be plugged in anywhere, to a normal 20/25 amp > line, and run fine. > In a house, lines are usually 16, 20, or 25 amps. The 25 is less common, > and is reserved for "heavy appliances". > These would be anything with a heavier load, dishwasher, portable > oven/stove, pottery kiln (small), etc. > One is usually set up for a kitchen, with plugs, and maybe another for > example in a garage, if you have one. > A sauna for example is wired directly, with special cable for the > internal part (moisture proof). > > Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring maybe > as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ years old, in > southern europe. > Today, new instalalitons start at 7.5 kW and go up to 20 kW (houses). > I have a 30 kW main service, with a 400 V 3-phase branch circuit (house > with workshop). > > My bigger welder, a chicom inverter, goes upto 240 amps, and runs just > fine from any plug in the house or workshop, even with an extension cord. > The welder is about 6-7 kg in mass, the small 200 amp chicom inverter is > about 5-6 amps, and produces similar excellent results. > I have a big, 4 kW, extension cord but do not bother with it on the > welder, and use just a normal 2 kW 4-plug 10 m rollable cord with no ill > effects. > > Note I can, and do, weld heavy 4.5 mm thick 7018 rod, with excellent > results, when making heavier steel assemblies, using this extension and > welder. > > Adding extra 25 amp service lines is fairly simple, and should be > painless but legally must be finished, inspected or signed off by an > electrician. > In practice, the local "sparky" does it, and you pay cash. > This is lamentable, but is what it is. > > Spain: > Recent law changes made it possible for more installations to be done by > non-gradute but experienced electricians. > You need to declare yourself an electrician, and competent, at the town > hall, and will be legally resposible for any faults in installations. > This allows for example immigrants from south america, who may have been > electricians, with licenses, to practice the trade here. > > For example, I could declare myself an electrician, and start signing > off on (small) installations. > I don�t, as I don�t work in the trades, but it would be possible. > I myself actually am trained in most of this stuff, as I was once a > mechanic courtesy of Finnish Air Force technical school, and we learned > just about anything practical. > I don�t need the liability, and when high power is required, I usually > pay (not a lot) and someone in the trades does the final hook-up. > > The development is very good, as the costs over here were high with no > responsibility and no real civil liability for anyone. > I mean that to sign off on an electrical plan (upgrade over 10 kW, > commercial) cost 10.000� / 13.000$, and that was just for the plan, not > work or installation, or material. > Just a stamp from an electrical engineer, who keeps the money himself. > You then paid for the (mandatory) inspection separately, as well as > materials and work (about 12.000� / 18.000$ for 35 kW, 12-16 GFIs). > This was guild-based extortion, pure and simple. > Northern europe is different, with unversally high standards and quality > throughout. > > In scandinavia, the plugs are all shuko, with no differenciation re: power. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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]| 26796|26796|2011-10-20 10:17:29|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|wind turbine at Can. Tire|There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. (sunforce, their brand name) the wings are made of composite . any advices? Martin.| 26797|26796|2011-10-20 11:20:05|Matt Malone|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|Yes, I have never bought it or used it, but, here is my appraisal after looking at it repeatedly, and discussing similar wind turbines with a racing sailor. 600 Watts is the power it will put out just before it explodes, melts, or catches fire, in a very high wind. You will get a lot less out of it. It may have a electromagnetic brake, which essentially just shorts the output to make it hard to turn. If the wind is strong enough to make it turn despite the brake, then all the energy from the wind is wasted in the windings of the generator, because no energy can be consumed by a dead short -- zero voltage times any current is zero power. Therefore, the day that the electromagnetic brake is insufficient, it will melt, explode or catch fire. I would have a binding cord or net at hand that I can fling into the prop to stop it.... Yes, that might be messy, but it will burn itself out otherwise, so, it is a last ditch effort. I would make it easily un-mountable (but locked) and connected by a simple plug so that it can be stored, or at least strapped down to the deck. I would take it down and leave it strapped down whenever I am not on the boat for more than a few days -- where I do not know the weather forecast. During these times, I would rely on solar to keep the batteries up, keep the mooring light lit, whatever. I also might consider modifying it to a self-furling design. The diagrams here are informative, I have not read the text: http://120thingsin20years.blogspot.com/2011/01/wind-energy-vane-furling.html This one shows a better view of an actual welded-up hub piece of a self-furling turbine that is based on a automotive wheel spindle, and home made generator. He shows a lot of magnet and generator stuff, you could ignore that and just look at the geometry of the off-center rotation axis, and the off-angle and tilted tail vane rotation axis. (skip down to 9/19/07) http://www.briery.com/wind_turbine/build_log2.html Yes, the tail vane boom lifts as it pivots around that upward sloping axis, so that, when the wind is very strong, it is lifted and and the vane boom and plane of the blades becomes more parallel, so the blades are facing off the wind. When the wind dies down again, the weight of the boom causes it to pivot back and drop so that the boom is more perpendicular to the plane of the blades, holding the blades into the wind. In this man's home made residential generator, he still has a hydraulic brake, so he does not have to climb the tower and redo 2 years of work if there is a bad storm. Making an existing turbine into a self-furling turbine is as simple as mounting the vertical rotation axis off to one side, and mounting a hinging tail vane on it at a particular angle. If one can build an entire boat, a hinging tail vane of the correct angles will be easy. As the wind blows harder, it changes angle to the wind and plateaus out in energy output. At low wind speeds, it stays face-on to the wind and gets the same power as it would unmodified. However, I might just buy it, strap it on my boat and know I am going to lose it in the first really good storm, and just stow it when I am not using the boat / expecting a storm. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:17:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. (sunforce, their brand name) the wings are made of composite . any advices? Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26798|26796|2011-10-20 11:35:20|Matt Malone|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|Dahh ! I forgot, on a boat that heels, this tail geometry might not work at all, or very well. I tilting mounting post capable of holding the turbine vertical might not be so easy. At anchor it would probably work OK. I say, use it unmodified, and take it down before a storm. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:18:35 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire > > > > Yes, I have never bought it or used it, but, here is my appraisal after looking at it repeatedly, and discussing similar wind turbines with a racing sailor. > > 600 Watts is the power it will put out just before it explodes, melts, or catches fire, in a very high wind. You will get a lot less out of it. > > It may have a electromagnetic brake, which essentially just shorts the output to make it hard to turn. If the wind is strong enough to make it turn despite the brake, then all the energy from the wind is wasted in the windings of the generator, because no energy can be consumed by a dead short -- zero voltage times any current is zero power. Therefore, the day that the electromagnetic brake is insufficient, it will melt, explode or catch fire. I would have a binding cord or net at hand that I can fling into the prop to stop it.... Yes, that might be messy, but it will burn itself out otherwise, so, it is a last ditch effort. > > I would make it easily un-mountable (but locked) and connected by a simple plug so that it can be stored, or at least strapped down to the deck. I would take it down and leave it strapped down whenever I am not on the boat for more than a few days -- where I do not know the weather forecast. During these times, I would rely on solar to keep the batteries up, keep the mooring light lit, whatever. > > > I also might consider modifying it to a self-furling design. The diagrams here are informative, I have not read the text: > > http://120thingsin20years.blogspot.com/2011/01/wind-energy-vane-furling.html > > This one shows a better view of an actual welded-up hub piece of a self-furling turbine that is based on a automotive wheel spindle, and home made generator. He shows a lot of magnet and generator stuff, you could ignore that and just look at the geometry of the off-center rotation axis, and the off-angle and tilted tail vane rotation axis. (skip down to 9/19/07) > > http://www.briery.com/wind_turbine/build_log2.html > > Yes, the tail vane boom lifts as it pivots around that upward sloping axis, so that, when the wind is very strong, it is lifted and and the vane boom and plane of the blades becomes more parallel, so the blades are facing off the wind. When the wind dies down again, the weight of the boom causes it to pivot back and drop so that the boom is more perpendicular to the plane of the blades, holding the blades into the wind. In this man's home made residential generator, he still has a hydraulic brake, so he does not have to climb the tower and redo 2 years of work if there is a bad storm. > > Making an existing turbine into a self-furling turbine is as simple as mounting the vertical rotation axis off to one side, and mounting a hinging tail vane on it at a particular angle. If one can build an entire boat, a hinging tail vane of the correct angles will be easy. As the wind blows harder, it changes angle to the wind and plateaus out in energy output. At low wind speeds, it stays face-on to the wind and gets the same power as it would unmodified. > > However, I might just buy it, strap it on my boat and know I am going to lose it in the first really good storm, and just stow it when I am not using the boat / expecting a storm. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:17:26 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > > (sunforce, their brand name) > > the wings are made of composite . > > any advices? > > > > 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]| 26799|26796|2011-10-20 13:24:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:17:26PM -0000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > (sunforce, their brand name) > the wings are made of composite . > any advices? The non-marine versions of the windgens that I've seen tend to a) slough off their paint within a couple of years and b) don't have well-protected or well-secured electronics in them. These are all solvable, though: disassemble the unit, spray the electronics (careful around the plugs) with several coats of non-conductive sealant that's made for the job, sandblast and epoxy the case, and reassemble it all with some extra zip ties. Ta-daa, a marinized windgen! One of the things I would look for when considering one for use on the boat is a good solid prop shaft. The stresses imposed on a spinning shaft by a rolling boat can be pretty severe. A friend of mine on a trimaran once lost all his power in a matter of seconds when crossing from the Turks and Caicos to Puerto Rico in rough weather: the shaft snapped, the still rapidly-spinning prop came down and punched a hole in one of his solar panels, bounced up, punched a hole through his other panel, and then bounced overboard. Jerry said he just stood there with his mouth open after it happened - it was as if that generator hated the competition and wanted to kill it as it died. :) 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| 26800|26796|2011-10-20 15:26:41|brentswain38|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|I believe WSE technologies in Sakatoon has the same unit, cheaper. The only difference between the marine version and the land version is the paint job, and the price tag, or so I'm told. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > (sunforce, their brand name) > the wings are made of composite . > any advices? > > Martin. > | 26801|26545|2011-10-21 16:33:01|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions|I would think seriously about an electrical upgrade. Ideally an outlet that can handle a fairly large welder. If need be call an electrician in to look at the service and the possibility of a high current outlet. Being able to run your welder without power interruptions is a good thing. Depending upon the age of your home though a high current outlet installation may be a problem. For example the original panel box at my house had four breakers in it with no possibility of expansion. The service is extremely marginal for welding. Hopefully you don't have this issue. You should look through your welders manual to find out what the manufacture recommends for AC in. This should be expressed in AMPs at a specific voltage. They may also extend that to amps at a specific welding current. Ideally you would have an outlet installed that could handle the full load current of the welder. For example, from memory, I believe my Mig welder manufacture recommends a 40 amp power source even though it may run fine on less with marginal heat settings. So I wired up an outlet to support the maximum power the welder would draw. In the end I think you will be very frustrated if your power supply to the welder is marginal or forces you to use slower methods. Sent from Dave's iPad! On Oct 17, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Ralph wrote: > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > Thank you > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: >> >> Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. >> >> Thank you >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>> >>> What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. >>> >>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: >>>> >>>> I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... >>>> >>>> Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. >>>> >>>> Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". >>>> >>>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. >>>>> >>>>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26802|26545|2011-10-21 16:49:57|David Frantz|Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe|Interesting but when you say all outlets are the same do you mean they look the same? I'm in the US, here you can pretty much tell the voltage and current rating of an outlet by looking at it. If you can't do that in Europe then how do you know at a glance what the outlet is capable of? It does make me wonder why a common outlet would be rated 25amps at 220 VAC. That is an awful lot of power for a wall outlet in a home. Sent from Dave's iPad! On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:53 AM, "\"hanermo\" - CNC 6-axis Designs" wrote: > I am not a licensed electrician, but have done and managed installations > upto 35 kW / 3phase, with inspections and certificates, here in Europe. > > In europe, all plugs are the same (within the country), basically. > These go upto 3 kW, or 25 amps at 220 V. > They are electrically safe upto 4 kW, ie nothing will melt or break with > a 4 kW load (new installations). > > Mostly, everything in europe is 220-240 V, and upto the same 25 amps. > We never have split phasing like the 110 / 110 for 220 in the US, it > just never happens. > > For large loads, like an electric range (2-3 kW), the loads are wired > directly to the house panel, no plugs are involved. > GFIs are always used. > > The main panel has a cut off switch (magnetic) and a GFI, both as > masters (ie for the whole electrical service), usually at about 400-600V > and whatever amps are needed (Spain). > > All major appliances like those meant meant for industrial use mandate > putting a GFI within 3 metres of the tool. > This would not be a drill press, but my 2.2 kW steel light industrial > table saw, at 70 kg mass, would be one of those. > > Even faily big welders can be plugged in anywhere, to a normal 20/25 amp > line, and run fine. > In a house, lines are usually 16, 20, or 25 amps. The 25 is less common, > and is reserved for "heavy appliances". > These would be anything with a heavier load, dishwasher, portable > oven/stove, pottery kiln (small), etc. > One is usually set up for a kitchen, with plugs, and maybe another for > example in a garage, if you have one. > A sauna for example is wired directly, with special cable for the > internal part (moisture proof). > > Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring maybe > as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ years old, in > southern europe. > Today, new instalalitons start at 7.5 kW and go up to 20 kW (houses). > I have a 30 kW main service, with a 400 V 3-phase branch circuit (house > with workshop). > > My bigger welder, a chicom inverter, goes upto 240 amps, and runs just > fine from any plug in the house or workshop, even with an extension cord. > The welder is about 6-7 kg in mass, the small 200 amp chicom inverter is > about 5-6 amps, and produces similar excellent results. > I have a big, 4 kW, extension cord but do not bother with it on the > welder, and use just a normal 2 kW 4-plug 10 m rollable cord with no ill > effects. > > Note I can, and do, weld heavy 4.5 mm thick 7018 rod, with excellent > results, when making heavier steel assemblies, using this extension and > welder. > > Adding extra 25 amp service lines is fairly simple, and should be > painless but legally must be finished, inspected or signed off by an > electrician. > In practice, the local "sparky" does it, and you pay cash. > This is lamentable, but is what it is. > > Spain: > Recent law changes made it possible for more installations to be done by > non-gradute but experienced electricians. > You need to declare yourself an electrician, and competent, at the town > hall, and will be legally resposible for any faults in installations. > This allows for example immigrants from south america, who may have been > electricians, with licenses, to practice the trade here. > > For example, I could declare myself an electrician, and start signing > off on (small) installations. > I don´t, as I don´t work in the trades, but it would be possible. > I myself actually am trained in most of this stuff, as I was once a > mechanic courtesy of Finnish Air Force technical school, and we learned > just about anything practical. > I don´t need the liability, and when high power is required, I usually > pay (not a lot) and someone in the trades does the final hook-up. > > The development is very good, as the costs over here were high with no > responsibility and no real civil liability for anyone. > I mean that to sign off on an electrical plan (upgrade over 10 kW, > commercial) cost 10.000€ / 13.000$, and that was just for the plan, not > work or installation, or material. > Just a stamp from an electrical engineer, who keeps the money himself. > You then paid for the (mandatory) inspection separately, as well as > materials and work (about 12.000€ / 18.000$ for 35 kW, 12-16 GFIs). > This was guild-based extortion, pure and simple. > Northern europe is different, with unversally high standards and quality > throughout. > > In scandinavia, the plugs are all shuko, with no differenciation re: power. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26803|26743|2011-10-22 19:56:49|ANDREW AIREY|Re: anodes performance|Hi Brent   Could you be a bit more specific in your statement about 'too many zincs causes paint to blister' please. My experience of powder epoxy over zinc is that it will blister - much to my friends disgust because he'd paid extra to have the (motorcycle) frames shotblasted and zinc sprayed prior to powder coating - but whether this would apply to epoxy tar or similar I don't know.My barge has been in a freshwater marina(Friesland,North Holland) for the last five years since the bottom was last blacked and when it was reblacked a few weeks ago we got 2 barrowloads of freshwater mussels off the bottom - the largest was about 1/2" long.(The barge is 40ftx10ftx 18" draft).The steel hull seemed in generally good order - it was doubled about 50 years ago - but the zincs at bow and stern needed replacing.The worst corrosion pits were above the waterline near the stern cheers Andy Airey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26804|26743|2011-10-22 20:30:41|Paul Wilson|Re: anodes performance|Hi Andy, Very few people understand this so thanks for bringing it up. I will jump (barge) in since I had the problem and it took me quite a while to figure it out....I had small blisters the size of the end of a pencil on the hull which were worse closer to the anodes. Removing a zinc seemed to help the problem. A good rule of thumb is that if you lose 50% of your zincs in one year, it is OK to add more but don't go too many or you may get the blisters. Hydrogen forms at the steel / coating interface causing the paint to blister (cathodic dis-bonding). When blisters are cut away the steel is shiny underneath with no corrosion, but that changes very quickly as oxygen and moisture get to the steel. Read this for more.... http://www.ybw.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-154819.html Good practical advice from the thread above: It sounds like you have a lot of anodes on your boat. Paint blistering is a problem if you have too many zincs on a steel boat. If your paint job is good you should only need 2 or maybe 3 - one near the keel, one on the prop shaft and perhaps one on the rudder. Ours is a 43ft steel yacht and has just two anodes. Too much zinc will cause small blisters between 1cm and 3cm across and if you clean them off down to the steel you will see a very small brown/black dot in the centre of the bare area. If you are under zinced the blister will have more of an overall rusty bubbling look underneath. The best way to check for the correct amount of zinc is with a multi-meter and zinc chloride anode hung over the side of the boat and connected to one terminal of the meter. You can buy these electrodes complete with cable for a few tens of pounds. The negative on the meter goes to a good earth and the electrode goes in the other socket on the meter. Check the voltage away from the marina berth and after you have been in the water for a few days (if you have been on the hard) and you should get a reading of around -0.8v (-800mV). If it is around 600mV then the zincs are not properly bonded. If it is up to 900mV or more then there is too much zinc and you will blister the paint. A quick way to check for stray currents (on all boats - not just steel) is to connect the +ve lead of the voltmeter to the boats bonding system (or hull of a steel boat). A bonded shroud or stay will work; other wise, connect to the engine negative terminal making sure that the electrical connection is clean and sound. Connect the -ve lead to a large zinc anode , and lower the zinc into the water. Note the voltage reading at the component. Repeat the measurement near all the underwater metal masses (by moving the suspended anode around the boat). If the boats zinc are doing their job, the readings should all be less than 0.2 volt. Readings of 0.5 volt to 0.8 volt indicate a complete lack of zinc (or poor connection between anodes and hull/bonding system). Readings in excess of 0.8 volt indicate a voltage field surrounding the boat. Cheers, Paul On 23/10/2011 12:50 p.m., ANDREW AIREY wrote: > > Hi Brent > > Could you be a bit more specific in your statement about 'too many > zincs causes paint to blister' please. My experience of powder epoxy > over zinc is that it will blister - much to my friends disgust because > he'd paid extra to have the (motorcycle) frames shotblasted and zinc > sprayed prior to powder coating - but whether this would apply to > epoxy tar or similar I don't know.My barge has been in a freshwater > marina(Friesland,North Holland) for the last five years since the > bottom was last blacked and when it was reblacked a few weeks ago we > got 2 barrowloads of freshwater mussels off the bottom - the largest > was about 1/2" long.(The barge is 40ftx10ftx 18" draft).The steel hull > seemed in generally good order - it was doubled about 50 years ago - > but the zincs at bow and stern needed replacing.The worst corrosion > pits were above the waterline near the stern > cheers > Andy Airey > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > | 26805|26545|2011-10-23 00:03:22|Doug Jackson|Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|We sold one of our submarines tonight so we can be dedicated to this origami boat project.   Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready gives a great impression of the size of this thing. I also makes for a great ride. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g  Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way.   Doug SVSeeker.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got it.  I'll give him a call latter today.  I know everyone in your > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :)   Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > recommend a blade design. He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 26806|26796|2011-10-23 12:47:46|martin demers|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|conclusion; I will either build a better one myself or wait to get a good deal on a real marine one... Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire Dahh ! I forgot, on a boat that heels, this tail geometry might not work at all, or very well. I tilting mounting post capable of holding the turbine vertical might not be so easy. At anchor it would probably work OK. I say, use it unmodified, and take it down before a storm. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:18:35 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire > > > > Yes, I have never bought it or used it, but, here is my appraisal after looking at it repeatedly, and discussing similar wind turbines with a racing sailor. > > 600 Watts is the power it will put out just before it explodes, melts, or catches fire, in a very high wind. You will get a lot less out of it. > > It may have a electromagnetic brake, which essentially just shorts the output to make it hard to turn. If the wind is strong enough to make it turn despite the brake, then all the energy from the wind is wasted in the windings of the generator, because no energy can be consumed by a dead short -- zero voltage times any current is zero power. Therefore, the day that the electromagnetic brake is insufficient, it will melt, explode or catch fire. I would have a binding cord or net at hand that I can fling into the prop to stop it.... Yes, that might be messy, but it will burn itself out otherwise, so, it is a last ditch effort. > > I would make it easily un-mountable (but locked) and connected by a simple plug so that it can be stored, or at least strapped down to the deck. I would take it down and leave it strapped down whenever I am not on the boat for more than a few days -- where I do not know the weather forecast. During these times, I would rely on solar to keep the batteries up, keep the mooring light lit, whatever. > > > I also might consider modifying it to a self-furling design. The diagrams here are informative, I have not read the text: > > http://120thingsin20years.blogspot.com/2011/01/wind-energy-vane-furling.html > > This one shows a better view of an actual welded-up hub piece of a self-furling turbine that is based on a automotive wheel spindle, and home made generator. He shows a lot of magnet and generator stuff, you could ignore that and just look at the geometry of the off-center rotation axis, and the off-angle and tilted tail vane rotation axis. (skip down to 9/19/07) > > http://www.briery.com/wind_turbine/build_log2.html > > Yes, the tail vane boom lifts as it pivots around that upward sloping axis, so that, when the wind is very strong, it is lifted and and the vane boom and plane of the blades becomes more parallel, so the blades are facing off the wind. When the wind dies down again, the weight of the boom causes it to pivot back and drop so that the boom is more perpendicular to the plane of the blades, holding the blades into the wind. In this man's home made residential generator, he still has a hydraulic brake, so he does not have to climb the tower and redo 2 years of work if there is a bad storm. > > Making an existing turbine into a self-furling turbine is as simple as mounting the vertical rotation axis off to one side, and mounting a hinging tail vane on it at a particular angle. If one can build an entire boat, a hinging tail vane of the correct angles will be easy. As the wind blows harder, it changes angle to the wind and plateaus out in energy output. At low wind speeds, it stays face-on to the wind and gets the same power as it would unmodified. > > However, I might just buy it, strap it on my boat and know I am going to lose it in the first really good storm, and just stow it when I am not using the boat / expecting a storm. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:17:26 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > > (sunforce, their brand name) > > the wings are made of composite . > > any advices? > > > > 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]| 26807|26545|2011-10-23 12:49:51|Matt Malone|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|Doug that is one scary big piece of steel. Your gantries and winches are quite impressive. After you finish the boat, how are you going to get it to the water ? What is the beam ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:03:21 -0700 Subject: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip We sold one of our submarines tonight so we can be dedicated to this origami boat project. Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready gives a great impression of the size of this thing. I also makes for a great ride. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way. Doug SVSeeker.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got it. I'll give him a call latter today. I know everyone in your > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :) Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > recommend a blade design. He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 26808|26545|2011-10-23 14:23:38|Doug Jackson|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|Matt Yeah, it got a lot bigger when hung up. It's a 16ft beam, and the Port of Catoosa is just 20 miles away. A house mover will get her that far where we'll add the pilot house and mast, then it's just 600 miles to New Orleans.  Doug SVSeeker.com ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:49 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip Doug that is one scary big piece of steel.  Your gantries and winches are quite impressive.  After you finish the boat, how are you going to get it to the water ?  What is the beam ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:03:21 -0700 Subject: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip                         We sold one of our submarines tonight so we can be dedicated to this origami boat project.  Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready gives a great impression of the size of this thing. I also makes for a great ride. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way. Doug SVSeeker.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Got it.  I'll give him a call latter today.  I know everyone in your > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :)  Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > recommend a blade design. He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 26809|26545|2011-10-23 17:06:27|Mark Hamill|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|And now we have proof that cats really do need those 9 lives. Great effort sir. All the best, MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26810|26545|2011-10-23 21:00:42|Darren Bos|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|HI Doug I've followed a lot of your posts and enjoyed your videos. I did double take when you said you were going to launch a 65' sailboat nearly in the geographic centre of the US. I had to google Port of Catoosa, it is amazing that you can launch a sailboat in the middle of the continent. Darren At 11:23 AM 23/10/2011, you wrote: > > >Matt > >Yeah, it got a lot bigger when hung up. It's a >16ft beam, and the Port of Catoosa is just 20 >miles away. A house mover will get her that far >where we'll add the pilot house and mast, then >it's just 600 miles to New Orleans. > >Doug >SVSeeker.com > >________________________________ >From: Matt Malone <m_j_malone@...> >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:49 AM >Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > >Doug that is one scary big piece of steel. Your >gantries and winches are quite >impressive. After you finish the boat, how are >you going to get it to the water ? What is the beam ? > >Matt > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: svseeker@... >Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:03:21 -0700 >Subject: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > > > > > > > We sold one of our submarines tonight so > we can be dedicated to this origami boat project. > >Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready >gives a great impression of the size of this thing. > >I also makes for a great ride. > >Enjoy: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g > > >Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way. > >Doug > >SVSeeker.com > >________________________________ > >From: Ben Okopnik <ben@...> > >To: >"origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" ><origamiboats@yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze > >On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Got it. I'll give him a call latter today. I know everyone in your > > > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :) > >Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early > >unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way > >south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > > > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > > > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > > > recommend a blade design. > >He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I > >don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation > >with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a > >sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to > >do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that > >the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those > >numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 > >------------------------------------ > >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]| 26811|26545|2011-10-23 21:37:40|Doug Jackson|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|Glad you've enjoyed them. Building in Tulsa makes getting used boat parts a problem, but on the up side we only paid $1400 for our lot, it's just 5 minutes from my office, and the back gate of the steel yard is just across the street. It's a long way off, but I really look forward to the trip down the river system. 18 locks to the Mississippi. :)   Doug SVSeeker.com ________________________________ From: Darren Bos To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip   HI Doug I've followed a lot of your posts and enjoyed your videos. I did double take when you said you were going to launch a 65' sailboat nearly in the geographic centre of the US. I had to google Port of Catoosa, it is amazing that you can launch a sailboat in the middle of the continent. Darren At 11:23 AM 23/10/2011, you wrote: > > >Matt > >Yeah, it got a lot bigger when hung up. It's a >16ft beam, and the Port of Catoosa is just 20 >miles away. A house mover will get her that far >where we'll add the pilot house and mast, then >it's just 600 miles to New Orleans. > >Doug >SVSeeker.com > >________________________________ >From: Matt Malone <m_j_malone@...> >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:49 AM >Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > >Doug that is one scary big piece of steel. Your >gantries and winches are quite >impressive. After you finish the boat, how are >you going to get it to the water ? What is the beam ? > >Matt > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: svseeker@... >Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:03:21 -0700 >Subject: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > > > > > > > We sold one of our submarines tonight so > we can be dedicated to this origami boat project. > >Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready >gives a great impression of the size of this thing. > >I also makes for a great ride. > >Enjoy: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g > > >Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way. > >Doug > >SVSeeker.com > >________________________________ > >From: Ben Okopnik <ben@...> > >To: >"origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" ><origamiboats@yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze > >On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Got it. I'll give him a call latter today. I know everyone in your > > > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :) > >Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early > >unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way > >south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > > > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > > > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > > > recommend a blade design. > >He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I > >don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation > >with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a > >sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to > >do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that > >the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those > >numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 > >------------------------------------ > >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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26812|26545|2011-10-24 17:00:59|brentswain38|Re: Seeker - Half Hull First Flip|Wait til you get the hull together and climb inside. Then it gets HUGE. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Matt > > Yeah, it got a lot bigger when hung up. It's a 16ft beam, and the Port of Catoosa is just 20 miles away. A house mover will get her that far where we'll add the pilot house and mast, then it's just 600 miles to New Orleans.� > > Doug > SVSeeker.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Matt Malone > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:49 AM > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > > > > Doug that is one scary big piece of steel.� Your gantries and winches are quite impressive.� After you finish the boat, how are you going to get it to the water ?� What is the beam ? > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: svseeker@... > Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:03:21 -0700 > Subject: [origamiboats] Seeker - Half Hull First Flip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > � � > � � � > � � � > � � � We sold one of our submarines tonight so we can be dedicated to this origami boat project.� > > > > Lifting half the hull plate into the air ready gives a great impression of the size of this thing. > > > > I also makes for a great ride. > > > > Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1G1Vfiz67g > > > > Oh! And two 3 ton electric winches are on their way. > > > > Doug > > SVSeeker.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ben Okopnik > > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 10:28 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Nibral vs Bronze > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:51:02AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Got it.� I'll give him a call latter today.� I know everyone in your > > > neck of the woods can't be getting up a 6am! :)� > > > > Oh, I'm on the East Coast. And I generally avoid getting up that early > > unless I just have to. :) Norm, on the other hand, is already on his way > > south (he's probably in port already; he wasn't going that far.) > > > > > I need to know what shaft rpm is best, and if the blades stay > > > feathered when there is no hydraulic pressure. And maybe he can > > > recommend a blade design. > > > > He gave me a detailed run-down on most of those things yesterday. I > > don't recall the entire thing, but the gist is that he, in consultation > > with the factory, figured out the correct progression for use on a > > sailboat (the default design is, obviously, for powerboats) - it has to > > do with the pin-and-block arrangement in the hub. He also mentioned that > > the hub should have some numbers stamped on it; Hundestadt can use those > > numbers to make the exact blades needed to match 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 > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] > | 26813|26813|2011-10-25 10:32:00|jhess314|"black" from aluminum on skin or gear|BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it?| 26814|26813|2011-10-25 11:21:39|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|> BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black > "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the > aluminum? > No. From what I have seen on 3 alu boats, and what others have experienced on dozens (alu landing crafts). > If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to > stabilize it? > No Painting alu is the hardest process there is (for marine use), and is well known to commonly fail even with industrial prep. It needs to be etched and washed and primed and still may fail. Manufacturers with high end items like Nordhavn and Diamond Sea Glaze have publicly failed, even with multiple attempts. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26815|26813|2011-10-25 12:02:34|Matt Malone|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Aluminium alloys are tricky. They protect themselves by producing an oxide layer. The oxide layer forms almost immediately. The oxide layer is not very strongly attached though, and is itself very abraisive -- aluminium oxide is commonly used in fine sand paper. This is why aluminium on aluminium slides often get sticky and grind like an old cheap-motel window. In areas where there is chafe, the oxide will rub off, and re-form, and rub off, etc. If the thing that is rubbing traps and holds the oxide, like a rope, or cloth, it can turn into a polishing cloth. In a short time (months) it is possible to have a hole in the boat. It is a good idea to look around for grooves or depressions or polished spots where there is something rubbing. Because aluminium protects itself with an oxide, painting is replacing an oxide layer that would badly like to form given the least opportunity. That is really tough to do. One option one might try is to allow the aluminium to naturally oxidize, and then apply a clear lacquer on the top-sides and areas where you expect to touch, not caring if the lacquer remains perfectly adhered everywhere -- just re-lacquer or strip the lacquer when and where it is a problem. Worst case, a little paint stripper will get rid of all the lacquer. At all times, the boat simply appears to be natural aluminium no matter how fresh or complete the lacquer job is. One might also vinyl-dip (like the handles on pliers) those things that one expects to interact with a lot, like latch handles and such. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:21:32 +0200 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black > "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the > aluminum? > No. From what I have seen on 3 alu boats, and what others have experienced on dozens (alu landing crafts). > If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to > stabilize it? > No Painting alu is the hardest process there is (for marine use), and is well known to commonly fail even with industrial prep. It needs to be etched and washed and primed and still may fail. Manufacturers with high end items like Nordhavn and Diamond Sea Glaze have publicly failed, even with multiple attempts. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26816|26813|2011-10-25 12:03:06|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Nice pics ! > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26817|26813|2011-10-25 12:09:23|Matt Malone|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Yes, I really like the very low profile pilot house / raised section of the dog house with all the windows around. I wish I had one. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:02:59 +0200 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] "black" from aluminum on skin or gear Nice pics ! > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26818|26545|2011-10-25 12:19:20|Ralph|Re: Basic welding questions|The Hull is tacked and I am now struggling with the decks. In total 350 working hours after the sheets arrived. The article was written by a reporter with no boating back ground, for a popular newspaper in Holland. I could mention your name and the word 'origami'. I received zero reactions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Ralph > I was sent the article in the Dutch paper about your boat. Looks like you are making good progress. Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted it, before I could get a translation. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Brent for your answer, it makes me happy. > > > > Matt, > > I'm using a Kemppi Miniarc 150. My house has 230V and my breakers are 16 amps, I could upgrade it to 20. None of the plugs on your drawing look like mine. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ralph, > > > > > > What type of welder do you have ? Does it say on it how much current it draws ? What does the plug look like ? > > > > > > http://www.220outlet.com/pictures/nemachart.jpg > > > > > > Mine is a "6-50R" on that diagram. What sort of service do you have at your house ? 240 V ? How many amps? > > > > > > Are you trying to plug it into a plug for something else -- like the dryer? (there are adapter cables) > > > > > > Is there anything else on the circuit ? > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: dejongralph@ > > > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:22:07 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 > > > > > > and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can > > > > > > weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that > > > > > > should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would there be something against not using only 6011 1/8" instead of the 6011 and 7024. The 7024 1/8" rod is asking more amps than my house can give, I can weld 4 inches and then the breaker system jumps in. Or is there another rod that should replace the 7024. The 6011 gives me no problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What has been well proven over 30 years is 1/8th and 5/32 ,6011 for overhead and uphand welding, and 1/8th inch 7024 for horizontal welding. We have found no need to change this tradition.It is well tested and proven in extreme conditions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if I am putting in writing lately not what I meant.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify it... I was asking about welding for Origami project in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instructor's respond: "Use proven welding method recommended by the designer. If you think something might work better - experiment with it". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are few boats as well proven as my 36. It makes no sense at all economically or otherwise to return to the past using outdated building methods. They offer zero d advantage at any price. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked our instructor again about possibility to use shielded wires. It turned out that he heard about Origami boatbuilding ;) He has very limited experience welding with different types of shielded wires (he teaches stick welding). He knows one what Aaron was talking about, another one for bridges. Both have its downside - only one pass can be used. Wire for bridges is too thick for welding 3/16 plate. Gas shielded wires may be used if conditions allow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Origami boatbuilding project does not fall in any pre-defined recommendations. Basically you need to experiment, use what already proven to work or what you are best with ;)) Economic side of the project will have effect on what you may choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 26819|26545|2011-10-25 12:27:21|Ralph|Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe|Thank you Hanermo and Matt, I will take my welder to a shop to try the 7024 there and if that is positive I will see how to upgrade my home systems. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "\"hanermo\" - CNC 6-axis Designs" wrote: > > I am not a licensed electrician, but have done and managed installations > upto 35 kW / 3phase, with inspections and certificates, here in Europe. > > In europe, all plugs are the same (within the country), basically. > These go upto 3 kW, or 25 amps at 220 V. > They are electrically safe upto 4 kW, ie nothing will melt or break with > a 4 kW load (new installations). > > Mostly, everything in europe is 220-240 V, and upto the same 25 amps. > We never have split phasing like the 110 / 110 for 220 in the US, it > just never happens. > > For large loads, like an electric range (2-3 kW), the loads are wired > directly to the house panel, no plugs are involved. > GFIs are always used. > > The main panel has a cut off switch (magnetic) and a GFI, both as > masters (ie for the whole electrical service), usually at about 400-600V > and whatever amps are needed (Spain). > > All major appliances like those meant meant for industrial use mandate > putting a GFI within 3 metres of the tool. > This would not be a drill press, but my 2.2 kW steel light industrial > table saw, at 70 kg mass, would be one of those. > > Even faily big welders can be plugged in anywhere, to a normal 20/25 amp > line, and run fine. > In a house, lines are usually 16, 20, or 25 amps. The 25 is less common, > and is reserved for "heavy appliances". > These would be anything with a heavier load, dishwasher, portable > oven/stove, pottery kiln (small), etc. > One is usually set up for a kitchen, with plugs, and maybe another for > example in a garage, if you have one. > A sauna for example is wired directly, with special cable for the > internal part (moisture proof). > > Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring maybe > as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ years old, in > southern europe. > Today, new instalalitons start at 7.5 kW and go up to 20 kW (houses). > I have a 30 kW main service, with a 400 V 3-phase branch circuit (house > with workshop). > > My bigger welder, a chicom inverter, goes upto 240 amps, and runs just > fine from any plug in the house or workshop, even with an extension cord. > The welder is about 6-7 kg in mass, the small 200 amp chicom inverter is > about 5-6 amps, and produces similar excellent results. > I have a big, 4 kW, extension cord but do not bother with it on the > welder, and use just a normal 2 kW 4-plug 10 m rollable cord with no ill > effects. > > Note I can, and do, weld heavy 4.5 mm thick 7018 rod, with excellent > results, when making heavier steel assemblies, using this extension and > welder. > > Adding extra 25 amp service lines is fairly simple, and should be > painless but legally must be finished, inspected or signed off by an > electrician. > In practice, the local "sparky" does it, and you pay cash. > This is lamentable, but is what it is. > > Spain: > Recent law changes made it possible for more installations to be done by > non-gradute but experienced electricians. > You need to declare yourself an electrician, and competent, at the town > hall, and will be legally resposible for any faults in installations. > This allows for example immigrants from south america, who may have been > electricians, with licenses, to practice the trade here. > > For example, I could declare myself an electrician, and start signing > off on (small) installations. > I don´t, as I don´t work in the trades, but it would be possible. > I myself actually am trained in most of this stuff, as I was once a > mechanic courtesy of Finnish Air Force technical school, and we learned > just about anything practical. > I don´t need the liability, and when high power is required, I usually > pay (not a lot) and someone in the trades does the final hook-up. > > The development is very good, as the costs over here were high with no > responsibility and no real civil liability for anyone. > I mean that to sign off on an electrical plan (upgrade over 10 kW, > commercial) cost 10.000€ / 13.000$, and that was just for the plan, not > work or installation, or material. > Just a stamp from an electrical engineer, who keeps the money himself. > You then paid for the (mandatory) inspection separately, as well as > materials and work (about 12.000€ / 18.000$ for 35 kW, 12-16 GFIs). > This was guild-based extortion, pure and simple. > Northern europe is different, with unversally high standards and quality > throughout. > > In scandinavia, the plugs are all shuko, with no differenciation re: power. > | 26820|26820|2011-10-25 15:02:05|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|bad pirate pilot house height|Hi Bad pirate, Nice pictures of your boat! I would like to know how high is your pilothouse compare to the cabin top? thanks, Martin.| 26821|26821|2011-10-25 15:07:59|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|How sticky is the lead to the keel steel?|Hi, I am still working on my keel, and a new question came to my mind; does the lead stick to the steel pretty much when it is melted in the keel, does rust forms in between lead and steel thrue the years of usage of the boat? I am know making the fuel tank in the back of the keel right in the back of the section containing the lead ,I would not like to have some rust make a hole and make a fuel leak. Martin.| 26822|26813|2011-10-25 17:33:04|brentswain38|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Bruce Cope of Cope Aluminium boats in Parksville said the only way he was able to get paint to stick well to aluminium was to lightly sandblast it, first. That black is one of the drawbacks of aluminium. Painting it is theonly solution I've heard of. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > | 26823|26821|2011-10-25 17:39:04|brentswain38|Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel?|When you weld a steel cap over the lead , it eliminates access to the oxygen needed for corrosion. You could weld an SS nut over a hole to pour oil thru , then put a bolt in to seal it. Oil will float on top of any water that may get in and stop oxygen from getting in. If it is welded airtight, no oxygen can get in anyway. The oil is just another line of defence. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi, > > I am still working on my keel, and a new question came to my mind; does the lead stick to the steel pretty much when it is melted in the keel, does rust forms in between lead and steel thrue the years of usage of the boat? > > I am know making the fuel tank in the back of the keel right in the back of the section containing the lead ,I would not like to have some rust make a hole and make a fuel leak. > > Martin. > | 26824|26813|2011-10-25 17:48:11|Paul Wilson|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|A friend of mine who ran a dive operation in the tropics used to strip the paint off his aluminum dive bottles, even if they were new. If a painted bottle is chipped, the moisture and salt is held under the flaking paint edge and promotes corrosion. If unpainted, it is easy to rinse, clean and dry the bottle and corrosion ends up being far less of a problem. Cheers, Paul On 26/10/2011 10:33 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > Bruce Cope of Cope Aluminium boats in Parksville said the only way he > was able to get paint to stick well to aluminium was to lightly > sandblast it, first. > That black is one of the drawbacks of aluminium. Painting it is > theonly solution I've heard of. > > | 26825|26821|2011-10-25 18:30:09|martin demers|Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel?|in my boat it was not done the proper way, all the top surface of the lead is exposed to air(and water if any gets there) then it might mean that anything could have happen down there??? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:39:00 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel? When you weld a steel cap over the lead , it eliminates access to the oxygen needed for corrosion. You could weld an SS nut over a hole to pour oil thru , then put a bolt in to seal it. Oil will float on top of any water that may get in and stop oxygen from getting in. If it is welded airtight, no oxygen can get in anyway. The oil is just another line of defence. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi, > > I am still working on my keel, and a new question came to my mind; does the lead stick to the steel pretty much when it is melted in the keel, does rust forms in between lead and steel thrue the years of usage of the boat? > > I am know making the fuel tank in the back of the keel right in the back of the section containing the lead ,I would not like to have some rust make a hole and make a fuel leak. > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26826|26545|2011-10-25 20:15:49|Alan Boucher|Re: Basic welding questions - plugs worldwide, esp. europe|On 10/25/2011 12:27 PM, Ralph wrote: > > Thank you Hanermo and Matt, I will take my welder to a shop to try the > 7024 there and if that is positive I will see how to upgrade my home > systems. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "\"hanermo\" - CNC 6-axis > Designs" wrote: > > > > I am not a licensed electrician, but have done and managed > installations > > upto 35 kW / 3phase, with inspections and certificates, here in Europe. > > > > In europe, all plugs are the same (within the country), basically. > > These go upto 3 kW, or 25 amps at 220 V. > > They are electrically safe upto 4 kW, ie nothing will melt or break > with > > a 4 kW load (new installations). > > > > Mostly, everything in europe is 220-240 V, and upto the same 25 amps. > > We never have split phasing like the 110 / 110 for 220 in the US, it > > just never happens. > > > > For large loads, like an electric range (2-3 kW), the loads are wired > > directly to the house panel, no plugs are involved. > > GFIs are always used. > > > > The main panel has a cut off switch (magnetic) and a GFI, both as > > masters (ie for the whole electrical service), usually at about > 400-600V > > and whatever amps are needed (Spain). > > > > All major appliances like those meant meant for industrial use mandate > > putting a GFI within 3 metres of the tool. > > This would not be a drill press, but my 2.2 kW steel light industrial > > table saw, at 70 kg mass, would be one of those. > > > > Even faily big welders can be plugged in anywhere, to a normal 20/25 > amp > > line, and run fine. > > In a house, lines are usually 16, 20, or 25 amps. The 25 is less > common, > > and is reserved for "heavy appliances". > > These would be anything with a heavier load, dishwasher, portable > > oven/stove, pottery kiln (small), etc. > > One is usually set up for a kitchen, with plugs, and maybe another for > > example in a garage, if you have one. > > A sauna for example is wired directly, with special cable for the > > internal part (moisture proof). > > > > Old installations for a house can be as small as 4 kW, and wiring maybe > > as small as 1 kW load max, but these are typically 40+ years old, in > > southern europe. > > Today, new instalalitons start at 7.5 kW and go up to 20 kW (houses). > > I have a 30 kW main service, with a 400 V 3-phase branch circuit (house > > with workshop). > > > > My bigger welder, a chicom inverter, goes upto 240 amps, and runs just > > fine from any plug in the house or workshop, even with an extension > cord. > > The welder is about 6-7 kg in mass, the small 200 amp chicom > inverter is > > about 5-6 amps, and produces similar excellent results. > > I have a big, 4 kW, extension cord but do not bother with it on the > > welder, and use just a normal 2 kW 4-plug 10 m rollable cord with no > ill > > effects. > > > > Note I can, and do, weld heavy 4.5 mm thick 7018 rod, with excellent > > results, when making heavier steel assemblies, using this extension and > > welder. > > > > Adding extra 25 amp service lines is fairly simple, and should be > > painless but legally must be finished, inspected or signed off by an > > electrician. > > In practice, the local "sparky" does it, and you pay cash. > > This is lamentable, but is what it is. > > > > Spain: > > Recent law changes made it possible for more installations to be > done by > > non-gradute but experienced electricians. > > You need to declare yourself an electrician, and competent, at the town > > hall, and will be legally resposible for any faults in installations. > > This allows for example immigrants from south america, who may have > been > > electricians, with licenses, to practice the trade here. > > > > For example, I could declare myself an electrician, and start signing > > off on (small) installations. > > I don´t, as I don´t work in the trades, but it would be possible. > > I myself actually am trained in most of this stuff, as I was once a > > mechanic courtesy of Finnish Air Force technical school, and we learned > > just about anything practical. > > I don´t need the liability, and when high power is required, I usually > > pay (not a lot) and someone in the trades does the final hook-up. > > > > The development is very good, as the costs over here were high with no > > responsibility and no real civil liability for anyone. > > I mean that to sign off on an electrical plan (upgrade over 10 kW, > > commercial) cost 10.000EUR / 13.000$, and that was just for the > plan, not > > work or installation, or material. > > Just a stamp from an electrical engineer, who keeps the money himself. > > You then paid for the (mandatory) inspection separately, as well as > > materials and work (about 12.000EUR / 18.000$ for 35 kW, 12-16 GFIs). > > This was guild-based extortion, pure and simple. > > Northern europe is different, with unversally high standards and > quality > > throughout. > > > > In scandinavia, the plugs are all shuko, with no differenciation re: > power. > > > > For an interesting treatise on plugs look at "Plugging In" in the October 20,2011 issue of Machine Design. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26827|26813|2011-10-26 08:04:09|jhess314|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Thanks to all for your comments. From what's been said I understand that generally you won't pick up a black stain from aluminum unless it is from an area which continually gets rubbed -- rubbing may prevent the oxide layer from forming. If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating or a soft coating better? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > | 26828|26813|2011-10-26 09:49:19|Ben Okopnik|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > or a soft coating better? The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, therefore...) If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this case. 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| 26829|26545|2011-10-26 11:59:04|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after using E6011. Just an observation ;)| 26830|26545|2011-10-26 13:39:01|mauro gonzaga|Re: Basic welding questions|From ASME II/C E6010 E4310 High cellulose sodium F, V, OH, H dcep E6011 E4311 High cellulose potassium F, V, OH, H ac or dcepThe abbreviations, F, H, H-fillet, V, V-down, and OH indicate the welding positions as follows: FpFlat, HpHorizontal, H-filletpHorizontal fillet, V p Vertical, progression upwards (for electrodes 3⁄16 in. [5.0 mm] and under, Mauro ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:58 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions   I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after using E6011. Just an observation ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26831|26831|2011-10-26 13:41:57|jordan.fred77|to badpirate|LOVE your boat. exemplifies all the attributes of intelligent boat building. it has re-inspired me.| 26832|26813|2011-10-26 13:44:31|mauro gonzaga|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gearAntifouling on aluminum|Definitely DO NOT USE copper based antifouling (but I think it is not available any more, because of environment), because of  galvanic corrosion. Mauro ________________________________ From: jhess314 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:03 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear   Thanks to all for your comments. From what's been said I understand that generally you won't pick up a black stain from aluminum unless it is from an area which continually gets rubbed -- rubbing may prevent the oxide layer from forming. If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating or a soft coating better? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26833|26813|2011-10-26 18:07:27|Darren Bos|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is possible, but there seems to be a lot of variables. Basically, you need to keep the copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do this, but it does seem a bit like playing with fire. You have a huge surface area of copper (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, just a scratch might not cause a problem, because you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get in contact with the copper...... If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide and in the spring, summer and early fall it works well, but once the sun starts to get low in the sky fouling really seems to accelerate. My two bits, Darren At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: > > >On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > or a soft coating better? > >The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum >yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's >quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum >primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least >some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there >are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > >On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied >copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so >that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, >therefore...) > >If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get >their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm >terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to >figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this >case. > >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]| 26834|26813|2011-10-26 19:03:00|Paul Wilson|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|The alloy boats I have seen use Interlux Interprotect as a barrier between the aluminum and the antifouling. It has glass flakes encapsulated into the paint and is supposed to be really good stuff. http://www.yachtpaint.com/usa/diy/products/primers/interprotect-2000e.aspx I would always follow manufacturer recommendations when it comes to paint.....Interlux says to use Trilux 33 on aluminum. I believe it has copper content but it may be kept low enough to be safe with aluminum. Cheers, Paul| 26835|26813|2011-10-27 01:22:49|badpirate36|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|I haven't had any problem with black stains. The fenders usualy have a black streak, but they polish up the hull real nice (need more-bigger fenders) I used interlux's system for the bottom. I cleaned the hull mechanicaly then applied vinyl-lux prime wash to etch the hull followed by 5 coats of interlux 2000e(approx 3-4 mils) and finaly several coats of trilux 2(canada) bottom paint. I hauled out after one year, bottom was fine and I plan to recoat next summer. It's important for the epoxy layer to be thick enough to insure seperation between the botom paint and the aluminum. Sand blasting allows you to leave out the etching process which is the usual failure point as the etching is softer than the epoxy and may fail with rough handling. No plans to paint the topsides, however I understand white is the only chioce for the tropics. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Thanks to all for your comments. From what's been said I understand that generally you won't pick up a black stain from aluminum unless it is from an area which continually gets rubbed -- rubbing may prevent the oxide layer from forming. > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating or a soft coating better? > > John > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > > > | 26836|26796|2011-10-27 18:11:13|martin demers|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|Ben, is it worth the trouble? are the marine versions much more expensive? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:24:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:17:26PM -0000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > (sunforce, their brand name) > the wings are made of composite . > any advices? The non-marine versions of the windgens that I've seen tend to a) slough off their paint within a couple of years and b) don't have well-protected or well-secured electronics in them. These are all solvable, though: disassemble the unit, spray the electronics (careful around the plugs) with several coats of non-conductive sealant that's made for the job, sandblast and epoxy the case, and reassemble it all with some extra zip ties. Ta-daa, a marinized windgen! One of the things I would look for when considering one for use on the boat is a good solid prop shaft. The stresses imposed on a spinning shaft by a rolling boat can be pretty severe. A friend of mine on a trimaran once lost all his power in a matter of seconds when crossing from the Turks and Caicos to Puerto Rico in rough weather: the shaft snapped, the still rapidly-spinning prop came down and punched a hole in one of his solar panels, bounced up, punched a hole through his other panel, and then bounced overboard. Jerry said he just stood there with his mouth open after it happened - it was as if that generator hated the competition and wanted to kill it as it died. :) 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] | 26837|26796|2011-10-27 19:54:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:11:11PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > is it worth the trouble? > are the marine versions much more expensive? By quite a bit, usually - and for some "marine" versions (e.g., the KISS windgen) you need to do most of that procedure anyway. And it's really not that much trouble: tearing down an Air-X generator, for example, takes maybe 10 minutes, including labelling all the wires you take loose. Then, taking proper care when reassembling it - i.e., doing the same things you should do when working with any marine equipment (making sure nothing is rubbing, lube where necessary, tie-wraps to secure loose wiring, etc.) - takes maybe another 20 minutes. All stuff that would have cost maybe another dollar and another 2 minutes on the assembly line, but - hey, they wouldn't be able to charge for a "marine" version if they just gave away the high quality! They're mostly good, sturdy machines, and with a little bit of extra care, they'll work for a long, long time and give great service. It's just that the hourly employee who does the initial assembly can't care as much as the person who has to use it, and won't be suffering the consequences of failure. Oh, - carry spare bearings, well-lubed and stored in a Zip-Loc baggie. You'll need them in about 10 years. Usually ~$100+ from the vendor, more like $12 from your local auto parts store (same exact quality, etc.) Just make sure to copy the numbers straight off the installed ones when you do the tear-down. 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| 26838|26796|2011-10-27 20:00:50|martin demers|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|OK thanks. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:11:11PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > is it worth the trouble? > are the marine versions much more expensive? By quite a bit, usually - and for some "marine" versions (e.g., the KISS windgen) you need to do most of that procedure anyway. And it's really not that much trouble: tearing down an Air-X generator, for example, takes maybe 10 minutes, including labelling all the wires you take loose. Then, taking proper care when reassembling it - i.e., doing the same things you should do when working with any marine equipment (making sure nothing is rubbing, lube where necessary, tie-wraps to secure loose wiring, etc.) - takes maybe another 20 minutes. All stuff that would have cost maybe another dollar and another 2 minutes on the assembly line, but - hey, they wouldn't be able to charge for a "marine" version if they just gave away the high quality! They're mostly good, sturdy machines, and with a little bit of extra care, they'll work for a long, long time and give great service. It's just that the hourly employee who does the initial assembly can't care as much as the person who has to use it, and won't be suffering the consequences of failure. Oh, - carry spare bearings, well-lubed and stored in a Zip-Loc baggie. You'll need them in about 10 years. Usually ~$100+ from the vendor, more like $12 from your local auto parts store (same exact quality, etc.) Just make sure to copy the numbers straight off the installed ones when you do the tear-down. 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] | 26839|26821|2011-10-27 21:17:23|brentswain38|Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel?|Whack it on the outside with a hammer and a centre punch, especialy along the bottom. If it doesn't make much of an impresion, there is plenty of steel there. Then you can put a bit of oil in to stop it from corroding any futher, as that will seal any oxygen out. Weld a cap on as soon as the opportunity arrives. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > in my boat it was not done the proper way, all the top surface of the lead is exposed to air(and water if any gets there) > then it might mean that anything could have happen down there??? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:39:00 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel? > > > > > > When you weld a steel cap over the lead , it eliminates access to the oxygen needed for corrosion. You could weld an SS nut over a hole to pour oil thru , then put a bolt in to seal it. Oil will float on top of any water that may get in and stop oxygen from getting in. > If it is welded airtight, no oxygen can get in anyway. The oil is just another line of defence. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am still working on my keel, and a new question came to my mind; does the lead stick to the steel pretty much when it is melted in the keel, does rust forms in between lead and steel thrue the years of usage of the boat? > > > > I am know making the fuel tank in the back of the keel right in the back of the section containing the lead ,I would not like to have some rust make a hole and make a fuel leak. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26840|26813|2011-10-27 21:21:55|brentswain38|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > or a soft coating better? > > The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum > yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's > quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum > primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least > some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there > are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > > On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied > copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so > that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, > therefore...) > > If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get > their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm > terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to > figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this > case. > > > 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 > | 26841|26545|2011-10-27 21:23:13|brentswain38|Re: Basic welding questions|I've always found 6010 much harder to weld with than 6011. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. > > I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after using E6011. > > Just an observation ;) > | 26842|26813|2011-10-27 21:29:57|brentswain38|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|I had to paint the back of my aluminium dinghy white so I wouldn't burn my feet on it in the tropics. Friends, living on a bare aluminium boat there, took till 2 am to get to sleep, as it took that long for the boat to cool off, after hours in the sun. It was well insulated with sprayfoam. They suffered greatly, needlessly. You could easily burn yourself severely if you stepped on bare aluminium which had been in the sun. White paint is the only cure. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > I haven't had any problem with black stains. The fenders usualy have a black streak, but they polish up the hull real nice (need more-bigger fenders) > > I used interlux's system for the bottom. I cleaned the hull mechanicaly then applied vinyl-lux prime wash to etch the hull followed by 5 coats of interlux 2000e(approx 3-4 mils) and finaly several coats of trilux 2(canada) bottom paint. I hauled out after one year, bottom was fine and I plan to recoat next summer. It's important for the epoxy layer to be thick enough to insure seperation between the botom paint and the aluminum. Sand blasting allows you to leave out the etching process which is the usual failure point as the etching is softer than the epoxy and may fail with rough handling. > > No plans to paint the topsides, however I understand white is the only chioce for the tropics. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Thanks to all for your comments. From what's been said I understand that generally you won't pick up a black stain from aluminum unless it is from an area which continually gets rubbed -- rubbing may prevent the oxide layer from forming. > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating or a soft coating better? > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > > > > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > > > > > > | 26843|26796|2011-10-27 21:36:27|Mark Hamill|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|Ben and all: This is a kit that might be of interest but more expensive than just disassembling the CTire unit. Any thoughts?? http://www.windbluepower.com/Lite_Breeze_Low_Wind_Generator_Kit_p/cy-low-kit.htm May not be as powerful as the CTire unit. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:11:11PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > is it worth the trouble? > are the marine versions much more expensive? By quite a bit, usually - and for some "marine" versions (e.g., the KISS windgen) you need to do most of that procedure anyway. And it's really not that much trouble: tearing down an Air-X generator, for example, takes maybe 10 minutes, including labelling all the wires you take loose. Then, taking proper care when reassembling it - i.e., doing the same things you should do when working with any marine equipment (making sure nothing is rubbing, lube where necessary, tie-wraps to secure loose wiring, etc.) - takes maybe another 20 minutes. All stuff that would have cost maybe another dollar and another 2 minutes on the assembly line, but - hey, they wouldn't be able to charge for a "marine" version if they just gave away the high quality! They're mostly good, sturdy machines, and with a little bit of extra care, they'll work for a long, long time and give great service. It's just that the hourly employee who does the initial assembly can't care as much as the person who has to use it, and won't be suffering the consequences of failure. Oh, - carry spare bearings, well-lubed and stored in a Zip-Loc baggie. You'll need them in about 10 years. Usually ~$100+ from the vendor, more like $12 from your local auto parts store (same exact quality, etc.) Just make sure to copy the numbers straight off the installed ones when you do the tear-down. 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] | 26844|26821|2011-10-27 21:37:16|martin demers|Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel?|OK thanks Brent, I will put some oil after I check the steel, and I will seal it with a cap, when I am finish with the fuek tank in the rear of the keel. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:17:20 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel? Whack it on the outside with a hammer and a centre punch, especialy along the bottom. If it doesn't make much of an impresion, there is plenty of steel there. Then you can put a bit of oil in to stop it from corroding any futher, as that will seal any oxygen out. Weld a cap on as soon as the opportunity arrives. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > in my boat it was not done the proper way, all the top surface of the lead is exposed to air(and water if any gets there) > then it might mean that anything could have happen down there??? > > Martin. > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:39:00 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How sticky is the lead to the keel steel? > > > > > > When you weld a steel cap over the lead , it eliminates access to the oxygen needed for corrosion. You could weld an SS nut over a hole to pour oil thru , then put a bolt in to seal it. Oil will float on top of any water that may get in and stop oxygen from getting in. > If it is welded airtight, no oxygen can get in anyway. The oil is just another line of defence. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am still working on my keel, and a new question came to my mind; does the lead stick to the steel pretty much when it is melted in the keel, does rust forms in between lead and steel thrue the years of usage of the boat? > > > > I am know making the fuel tank in the back of the keel right in the back of the section containing the lead ,I would not like to have some rust make a hole and make a fuel leak. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26845|26813|2011-10-27 22:27:35|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel ... But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the adhesiveness of the paint in a way? It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... it helps! --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: From: Darren Bos Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM   Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is possible, but there seems to be a lot of variables. Basically, you need to keep the copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do this, but it does seem a bit like playing with fire. You have a huge surface area of copper (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, just a scratch might not cause a problem, because you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get in contact with the copper...... If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide and in the spring, summer and early fall it works well, but once the sun starts to get low in the sky fouling really seems to accelerate. My two bits, Darren At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: > > >On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > or a soft coating better? > >The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum >yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's >quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum >primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least >some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there >are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > >On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied >copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so >that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, >therefore...) > >If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get >their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm >terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to >figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this >case. > >Ben >-- >OKOPNIK CONSULTING >Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26846|26813|2011-10-27 23:00:02|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|forgot to ask about rhinoliner stuff ... how well would they do down to 300'? and its endurance in saltwater? --- On Thu, 10/27/11, Roy wrote: From: Roy Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 10:27 PM   dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel ... But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the adhesiveness of the paint in a way? It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... it helps! --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: From: Darren Bos Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM   Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is possible, but there seems to be a lot of variables. Basically, you need to keep the copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do this, but it does seem a bit like playing with fire. You have a huge surface area of copper (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, just a scratch might not cause a problem, because you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get in contact with the copper...... If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide and in the spring, summer and early fall it works well, but once the sun starts to get low in the sky fouling really seems to accelerate. My two bits, Darren At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: > > >On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > or a soft coating better? > >The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum >yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's >quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum >primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least >some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there >are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > >On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied >copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so >that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, >therefore...) > >If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get >their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm >terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to >figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this >case. > >Ben >-- >OKOPNIK CONSULTING >Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26847|26813|2011-10-27 23:07:01|j fisher|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|I have worked with line X and it does not stick to metal without a good primer. Even then it doesnt stick that well and comes off as sheets. I would not recommend it based on my limited experience. It really only sticks to urethane's. It is really designed to go over automotive paint and sticks well to that, but that is about it. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Roy wrote: > ** > > > forgot to ask about rhinoliner stuff ... how well would they do down to > 300'? and its endurance in saltwater? > > --- On Thu, 10/27/11, Roy wrote: > > From: Roy > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 10:27 PM > > > > dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's > involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings > like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel > ... > > But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift > (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... > > the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there > ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at > least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the > adhesiveness of the paint in a way? > > It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... > it helps! > > --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: > > From: Darren Bos > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM > > > > Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is > > possible, but there seems to be a lot of > > variables. Basically, you need to keep the > > copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy > > encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do > > this, but it does seem a bit like playing with > > fire. You have a huge surface area of copper > > (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of > > aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since > > the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would > > have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small > > aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, > > just a scratch might not cause a problem, because > > you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if > > any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get > > in contact with the copper...... > > If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had > > good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, > > with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I > > haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint > > that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide > > and in the spring, summer and early fall it works > > well, but once the sun starts to get low in the > > sky fouling really seems to accelerate. > > My two bits, > > Darren > > At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > > > or a soft coating better? > > > > > >The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum > > >yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's > > >quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum > > >primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least > > >some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there > > >are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > > > > > >On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied > > >copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so > > >that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, > > >therefore...) > > > > > >If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get > > >their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm > > >terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to > > >figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this > > >case. > > > > > >Ben > > >-- > > >OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > >Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > >443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26848|26813|2011-10-27 23:55:24|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|thank you  yeah, I have seen them sprayed a lot in pickups and they seem to do well. I have noticed that a lot of them is of substantial thickness ... (instead of being thin as a paint layer) ... I am impressed with their resistance to abuse and being so easy to clean ... sounds like an ideal for a steel hull ... don't you think? --- On Thu, 10/27/11, j fisher wrote: From: j fisher Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 11:06 PM I have worked with line X and it does not stick to metal without a good primer.  Even then it doesnt stick that well and comes off as sheets.  I would not recommend it based on my limited experience.  It really only sticks to urethane's.  It is really designed to go over automotive paint and sticks well to that, but that is about it. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Roy wrote: > ** > > > forgot to ask about rhinoliner stuff ... how well would they do down to > 300'? and its endurance in saltwater? > > --- On Thu, 10/27/11, Roy wrote: > > From: Roy > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 10:27 PM > > > > dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's > involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings > like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel > ... > > But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift > (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... > > the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there > ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at > least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the > adhesiveness of the paint in a way? > > It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... > it helps! > > --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: > > From: Darren Bos > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM > > > > Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is > > possible, but there seems to be a lot of > > variables. Basically, you need to keep the > > copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy > > encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do > > this, but it does seem a bit like playing with > > fire. You have a huge surface area of copper > > (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of > > aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since > > the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would > > have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small > > aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, > > just a scratch might not cause a problem, because > > you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if > > any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get > > in contact with the copper...... > > If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had > > good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, > > with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I > > haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint > > that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide > > and in the spring, summer and early fall it works > > well, but once the sun starts to get low in the > > sky fouling really seems to accelerate. > > My two bits, > > Darren > > At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > > > > > > If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone > > > > recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating > > > > or a soft coating better? > > > > > >The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum > > >yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's > > >quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum > > >primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least > > >some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there > > >are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) > > > > > >On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied > > >copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so > > >that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, > > >therefore...) > > > > > >If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get > > >their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm > > >terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to > > >figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this > > >case. > > > > > >Ben > > >-- > > >OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > >Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > >443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [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] | 26849|26796|2011-10-28 00:00:08|Aaron|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|Martin Look around a bit there are more options out there.   Hey Ben Check these guys out. They have a 12/24 volt fridge freezer that look pretty good.   http://www.mwands.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=43&zenid=e98338790e0ca09cbef72f1b8d3d0fab   Aaron   ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire OK thanks. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire   On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:11:11PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > is it worth the trouble? > are the marine versions much more expensive? By quite a bit, usually - and for some "marine" versions (e.g., the KISS windgen) you need to do most of that procedure anyway. And it's really not that much trouble: tearing down an Air-X generator, for example, takes maybe 10 minutes, including labelling all the wires you take loose. Then, taking proper care when reassembling it - i.e., doing the same things you should do when working with any marine equipment (making sure nothing is rubbing, lube where necessary, tie-wraps to secure loose wiring, etc.) - takes maybe another 20 minutes. All stuff that would have cost maybe another dollar and another 2 minutes on the assembly line, but - hey, they wouldn't be able to charge for a "marine" version if they just gave away the high quality! They're mostly good, sturdy machines, and with a little bit of extra care, they'll work for a long, long time and give great service. It's just that the hourly employee who does the initial assembly can't care as much as the person who has to use it, and won't be suffering the consequences of failure. Oh, - carry spare bearings, well-lubed and stored in a Zip-Loc baggie. You'll need them in about 10 years. Usually ~$100+ from the vendor, more like $12 from your local auto parts store (same exact quality, etc.) Just make sure to copy the numbers straight off the installed ones when you do the tear-down. 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] | 26850|26813|2011-10-28 03:55:58|David Frantz|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Sounds good in theory but I'd find somebody that has actually used the stuff on a boat. I'd also would contact the Rhino people and similar organizations together their advice. If it is a bad idea they would likely tell you right off. Now years ago I read an article about somebody building a training boat of some sort that put in a nonslip surface on the interior decks an possibly a cockpit. Can't remember the details much these days but I believe it was some sort of urethane surface. If it does work, one big consideration is how do you make repairs? Think about this a bit because any surface will get damaged over time. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Roy wrote: > thank you > > yeah, I have seen them sprayed a lot in pickups and they seem to do well. I have noticed that a lot of them is of substantial thickness ... (instead of being thin as a paint layer) ... > > I am impressed with their resistance to abuse and being so easy to clean ... sounds like an ideal for a steel hull ... > > don't you think? > > > --- On Thu, 10/27/11, j fisher wrote: > > From: j fisher > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 11:06 PM > > I have worked with line X and it does not stick to metal without a good > primer. Even then it doesnt stick that well and comes off as sheets. I > would not recommend it based on my limited experience. It really only > sticks to urethane's. It is really designed to go over automotive paint and > sticks well to that, but that is about it. > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Roy wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> forgot to ask about rhinoliner stuff ... how well would they do down to >> 300'? and its endurance in saltwater? >> >> --- On Thu, 10/27/11, Roy wrote: >> >> From: Roy >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 10:27 PM >> >> >> >> dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's >> involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings >> like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel >> ... >> >> But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift >> (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... >> >> the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there >> ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at >> least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the >> adhesiveness of the paint in a way? >> >> It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... >> it helps! >> >> --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: >> >> From: Darren Bos >> >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear >> >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> >> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM >> >> >> >> Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is >> >> possible, but there seems to be a lot of >> >> variables. Basically, you need to keep the >> >> copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy >> >> encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do >> >> this, but it does seem a bit like playing with >> >> fire. You have a huge surface area of copper >> >> (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of >> >> aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since >> >> the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would >> >> have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small >> >> aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, >> >> just a scratch might not cause a problem, because >> >> you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if >> >> any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get >> >> in contact with the copper...... >> >> If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had >> >> good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, >> >> with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I >> >> haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint >> >> that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide >> >> and in the spring, summer and early fall it works >> >> well, but once the sun starts to get low in the >> >> sky fouling really seems to accelerate. >> >> My two bits, >> >> Darren >> >> At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone >> >>>> recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating >> >>>> or a soft coating better? >> >>> >> >>> The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum >> >>> yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's >> >>> quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum >> >>> primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least >> >>> some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there >> >>> are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) >> >>> >> >>> On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied >> >>> copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so >> >>> that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, >> >>> therefore...) >> >>> >> >>> If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get >> >>> their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm >> >>> terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to >> >>> figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this >> >>> case. >> >>> >> >>> Ben >> >>> -- >> >>> OKOPNIK CONSULTING >> >>> Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >> >>> Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >> >>> 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com >> http://twitter.com/okopnik >> >>> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26851|26796|2011-10-28 07:46:13|martin demers|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|sounds interesting, they have many to choose from. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:00:04 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire Martin Look around a bit there are more options out there. Hey Ben Check these guys out. They have a 12/24 volt fridge freezer that look pretty good. http://www.mwands.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=43&zenid=e98338790e0ca09cbef72f1b8d3d0fab Aaron ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire OK thanks. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:11:11PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > is it worth the trouble? > are the marine versions much more expensive? By quite a bit, usually - and for some "marine" versions (e.g., the KISS windgen) you need to do most of that procedure anyway. And it's really not that much trouble: tearing down an Air-X generator, for example, takes maybe 10 minutes, including labelling all the wires you take loose. Then, taking proper care when reassembling it - i.e., doing the same things you should do when working with any marine equipment (making sure nothing is rubbing, lube where necessary, tie-wraps to secure loose wiring, etc.) - takes maybe another 20 minutes. All stuff that would have cost maybe another dollar and another 2 minutes on the assembly line, but - hey, they wouldn't be able to charge for a "marine" version if they just gave away the high quality! They're mostly good, sturdy machines, and with a little bit of extra care, they'll work for a long, long time and give great service. It's just that the hourly employee who does the initial assembly can't care as much as the person who has to use it, and won't be suffering the consequences of failure. Oh, - carry spare bearings, well-lubed and stored in a Zip-Loc baggie. You'll need them in about 10 years. Usually ~$100+ from the vendor, more like $12 from your local auto parts store (same exact quality, etc.) Just make sure to copy the numbers straight off the installed ones when you do the tear-down. 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26852|26813|2011-10-28 08:54:08|Ben Okopnik|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 07:27:33PM -0700, Roy wrote: > > the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems > there ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting > problems? at least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps > with the adhesiveness of the paint in a way? I suspect the difference is that a) they're painted in a completely controlled environment, and b) with a very thin (i.e., flexible) coating that doesn't have to stand up to large variations in temperature, mechanical stress, etc. Neither of which is, of course, true in the case of a paint coat for a boat. Heck, if that was all the demand we made on boats, you could just Alodyne your hull and be done with it - that's what we used to do with the mechanical parts (aluminum) for the experimental radar systems we were building at Hughes. Nice quick easy process - at least if you can dip the whole part; beautiful coating. > It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to > ... it helps! I, for one, won't be laughing - nicely spotted and good brain food. But unfortunately not applicable. :) 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| 26853|26813|2011-10-28 09:14:53|Tom Mann|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|The sheet and plate in 5052 come with a light film of grease or oil on them, If you dont degrease them then you will get black on whatever touches them. After they are degreased no stains or black from touching them Tom On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:31 AM, jhess314 wrote: > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black > "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? > If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to > stabilize it? > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26854|26796|2011-10-28 09:32:01|Ben Okopnik|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 09:00:04PM -0700, Aaron wrote: > Martin > Look around a bit there are more options out there. Yep; worth comparing price vs. output. Also, it's a pretty good idea to search for reviews from people who have used them. My take, gathered over the years, is that you can either buy an Air-X (pricey) and be done with it, or a KISS (quite a bit cheaper, but you have to do a bit of improvement, as I've described.) There are lots of other options, but none that have been as well tested over time.   > Hey Ben Check these guys out. They have a 12/24 volt fridge freezer that look pretty good. >   > http://www.mwands.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=43&zenid=e98338790e0ca09cbef72f1b8d3d0fab Thanks, Aaron! That is a nice unit - although it's pretty big for a boat. Also, chest-type fridges tend to be a lot more economical: every time you open an upright, you're spilling out all the air you've spent the energy to cool. A friend of mine runs a pair of HUGE Engel MT-45 fridge/freezers off a couple of solar panels on his boat, and has for a number of years now: his measured draw is 2.6A when used as a freezer (0 degrees F!), 1.8A as a refrigerator. Pretty hard to beat. I wish I had the room on my boat. :) 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| 26855|26545|2011-10-28 12:47:05|Matt Malone|Re: Basic welding questions|Has anyone ever used 6011 on DC ? How does it do ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:23:11 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions I've always found 6010 much harder to weld with than 6011. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. > > I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after using E6011. > > Just an observation ;) > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26856|26545|2011-10-28 14:00:32|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I cannot say "I use it", but I am learning to weld with 6011 on DC welder (electrode positive), because the lab does not have AC welders - no choice ;) My observations: It is hard to maintain proper arc with 6011. It seems, that 6011 wants to stick if you stop to move/shake it. I suspect, it is because 6011 is designed for AC and just need "pulsating" motion to simulate AC on DC welder. 6010 tolerates even drugging an electrode on welding part and hesitation at one point without sticking. Easier to maintain an arc. I think it is all matter of preferences what electrode to use. If I was practicing with 6010, I probably would be better with 6010 than with 6011 ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Has anyone ever used 6011 on DC ? How does it do ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:23:11 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > I've always found 6010 much harder to weld with than 6011. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. > > > > > > I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after using E6011. > > > > > > Just an observation ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26857|26545|2011-10-28 15:47:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Basic welding questions|On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:00:28PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I cannot say "I use it", but I am learning to weld with 6011 on DC > welder (electrode positive), because the lab does not have AC welders > - no choice ;) > > My observations: > > It is hard to maintain proper arc with 6011. It seems, that 6011 wants > to stick if you stop to move/shake it. I suspect, it is because 6011 > is designed for AC and just need "pulsating" motion to simulate AC on > DC welder. I took an "immersion" welding course at FSU a few years back (8 hours a day, and longer if you felt like staying), and the instructor had us start with 6011 - same story, DCRP. It was a bit of torture until you figured it out - but everything we did from then on was easy. I hated it at the time, was _really_ grateful later. To the best of my recollection, the trick is that you can't just stop - you have to pull the rod off sharply. Nothing to do with "simulating" AC, of course - you'd have to move it in ~.017 seconds to do that :) - just that it has its own requirements, like any other type of rod does. It also has its specific uses, just like any other rod. Incidentally, I got to try a few types of rod on a cheap-ass buzzbox that somebody dragged in one day - people were always bringing in stuff to test in the welding lab. Didn't seem to make any difference in usage as far as I could tell; may have been a little more splatter, but I wouldn't swear to it. > 6010 tolerates even drugging an electrode on welding part and > hesitation at one point without sticking. Easier to maintain an arc. Yeah, 6010 makes a big difference. I grabbed a bunch of it out of the rod oven by mistake one day, and knew it was the wrong thing 5 seconds after I started welding with it. It was like gulping a shot of moonshine and having it taste like milk. :) 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| 26858|26545|2011-10-28 16:59:59|Tom Mann|Re: Basic welding questions|Dang near every day, runs smoother on DC + But then I run off SA-250 deisel Different brands of rods make a difference, I bought 5 50lbs boxes of inweld 6011 cheap wont make that mistake again it is crap compared to murex, With 6011 you want to store it dry, if it gets wet or damp and you dry it in an oven it will never be the same Tom On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Has anyone ever used 6011 on DC ? How does it do ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:23:11 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Basic welding questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've always found 6010 much harder to weld with than 6011. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" > wrote: > > > > > > I was practicing vertical up with 1/8" E6011 electrodes (lab uses DC > welders only) and suddenly could not make a good bed sometimes. > > > > > > I checked amperage settings (95A - OK) and then I check electrode. It > turned out that somebody put E6010 electrodes in the box for 6011 (6010 has > slightly different flux coat's color). E6011 and E6010 even feel different > when welding. I was really surprised, because in the welding manuals it is > recommended to use E6011 on AC and E6010 on DC, even welding technique > supposed to be the same for these electrodes. As our instructor told us, the > difference in the flux only. But I had a hard time to weld with E6010 after > using E6011. > > > > > > Just an observation ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 26859|26545|2011-10-28 17:36:39|wild_explorer|Re: Basic welding questions|I agree, I cannot simulate 60Hz AC, but 2-5Hz motion when welding with 6011 seems to help me. And as always - everyone welds differently. That probably why our instructor keep skipping on welding theory ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > To the best of my recollection, the trick is that you can't just stop - > you have to pull the rod off sharply. Nothing to do with "simulating" > AC, of course - you'd have to move it in ~.017 seconds to do that :) - > just that it has its own requirements, like any other type of rod does. > It also has its specific uses, just like any other rod. | 26860|26860|2011-10-29 17:16:30|Denis Buggy|Re: ETCH PRIMER|- DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND DENIS BUGGY Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26861|26860|2011-10-29 19:38:25|Aaron|Re: ETCH PRIMER|Thanks Denis NACE also teaches that one must follow the direction no exceptions allowed. ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER   - DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND DENIS BUGGY Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26862|26813|2011-10-29 20:49:02|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|yes ... that's why I asked if anyone here knows of it ... I will do same with the others ... from what I see ... it it was sprayed on, then wet should be able to respray the area of damage after the repairs ... we do so with trucks ... I am likely to go either with concrete or steel for the hull ... I am comfortable working with those two mediums ... with concrete, I don't think I need any coating, except to offer it some extra protection against minor abrasions and to make it more "slippery"(?) ... the steel ... it definitely can use some extra protections against abrasions ... has to be painted and it is not of my area of expertise ... and thus asking here ... Thanks --- On Fri, 10/28/11, David Frantz wrote: From: David Frantz Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, October 28, 2011, 3:55 AM   Sounds good in theory but I'd find somebody that has actually used the stuff on a boat. I'd also would contact the Rhino people and similar organizations together their advice. If it is a bad idea they would likely tell you right off. Now years ago I read an article about somebody building a training boat of some sort that put in a nonslip surface on the interior decks an possibly a cockpit. Can't remember the details much these days but I believe it was some sort of urethane surface. If it does work, one big consideration is how do you make repairs? Think about this a bit because any surface will get damaged over time. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Roy wrote: > thank you > > yeah, I have seen them sprayed a lot in pickups and they seem to do well. I have noticed that a lot of them is of substantial thickness ... (instead of being thin as a paint layer) ... > > I am impressed with their resistance to abuse and being so easy to clean ... sounds like an ideal for a steel hull ... > > don't you think? > > > --- On Thu, 10/27/11, j fisher wrote: > > From: j fisher > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 11:06 PM > > I have worked with line X and it does not stick to metal without a good > primer. Even then it doesnt stick that well and comes off as sheets. I > would not recommend it based on my limited experience. It really only > sticks to urethane's. It is really designed to go over automotive paint and > sticks well to that, but that is about it. > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Roy wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> forgot to ask about rhinoliner stuff ... how well would they do down to >> 300'? and its endurance in saltwater? >> >> --- On Thu, 10/27/11, Roy wrote: >> >> From: Roy >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2011, 10:27 PM >> >> >> >> dunno if this is dumb ... if so, its because I just have NO idea of what's >> involved with painting aluminum in particular, and with subject of coatings >> like paint or whatever. I deal with raw materials like wood, concrete, steel >> ... >> >> But when reading this line of discussion ... as usual, my mind would drift >> (maybe it's that I am "lost at sea" here?) ... but it comes into my mind ... >> >> the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems there >> ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting problems? at >> least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps with the >> adhesiveness of the paint in a way? >> >> It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to ... >> it helps! >> >> --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Darren Bos wrote: >> >> From: Darren Bos >> >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear >> >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> >> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 6:07 PM >> >> >> >> Copper antifouling on an aluminum boat is >> >> possible, but there seems to be a lot of >> >> variables. Basically, you need to keep the >> >> copper and aluminum apart, some epoxy >> >> encapsulated formulations seem to be able to do >> >> this, but it does seem a bit like playing with >> >> fire. You have a huge surface area of copper >> >> (the more noble metal) and likely a small area of >> >> aluminum (like a scratch in the paint). Since >> >> the less noble metal (aluminum) erodes you would >> >> have a huge copper electrode eroding a very small >> >> aluminum electrode (almost like drillng). Now, >> >> just a scratch might not cause a problem, because >> >> you likely wouldn't have a good circuit, but if >> >> any part of the aluminum hull finds a way to get >> >> in contact with the copper...... >> >> If anyone is looking for an alternative, I've had >> >> good success with E-paint here on the BC coast, >> >> with the caveat that it doesn't work in winter (I >> >> haul in the winter). It is an interesting paint >> >> that uses sunlight to produce hydrogen peroxide >> >> and in the spring, summer and early fall it works >> >> well, but once the sun starts to get low in the >> >> sky fouling really seems to accelerate. >> >> My two bits, >> >> Darren >> >> At 06:49 AM 26/10/2011, you wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:03:35PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> If it is so difficult to get paint to stick to aluminum can anyone >> >>>> recommend how to get anti-fouling paint to stick? Is a hard coating >> >>>> or a soft coating better? >> >>> >> >>> The only thing I'm familiar with, from talking to cruisers with aluminum >> >>> yachts, is that you must apply an acid pre-primer - as I recall, it's >> >>> quite strong, so you have to be really careful - and a special aluminum >> >>> primer. After that, you can apply anti-fouling paint, but in at least >> >>> some of the opinions I've heard, it *must not* be copper-based (there >> >>> are arsenic-based as well as other AF paints out there.) >> >>> >> >>> On the other hand, I've spoken to at least two people who have applied >> >>> copper-based AF paint to their aluminum boats and had no problems, so >> >>> that last part may just be a plausible myth (copper and aluminum react, >> >>> therefore...) >> >>> >> >>> If it was me, I'd call up somebody like International or Pettit, get >> >>> their recommendations, and follow them absolutely to the letter. I'm >> >>> terrible at painting - almost certainly because I'm always trying to >> >>> figure out a "better way to do it". :) Not the right thing in this >> >>> case. >> >>> >> >>> Ben >> >>> -- >> >>> OKOPNIK CONSULTING >> >>> Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >> >>> Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >> >>> 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com >> http://twitter.com/okopnik >> >>> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 26863|26813|2011-10-29 21:01:28|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... --- On Fri, 10/28/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, October 28, 2011, 8:53 AM   On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 07:27:33PM -0700, Roy wrote: > > the aluminum cans we drink from ... the ink seem to have no problems > there ... is there anything with that that can be used with painting > problems? at least maybe use it as a sort of sealer/primer if it helps > with the adhesiveness of the paint in a way? I suspect the difference is that a) they're painted in a completely controlled environment, and b) with a very thin (i.e., flexible) coating that doesn't have to stand up to large variations in temperature, mechanical stress, etc. Neither of which is, of course, true in the case of a paint coat for a boat. Heck, if that was all the demand we made on boats, you could just Alodyne your hull and be done with it - that's what we used to do with the mechanical parts (aluminum) for the experimental radar systems we were building at Hughes. Nice quick easy process - at least if you can dip the whole part; beautiful coating. > It's OK ... won't bother me at all, go ahead and laugh if you want to > ... it helps! I, for one, won't be laughing - nicely spotted and good brain food. But unfortunately not applicable. :) 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] | 26864|26860|2011-10-29 21:43:57|James Pronk|Re: ETCH PRIMER|I have used etching primers and the big thing is to read and follow the instructions. The primer I use needs at least 24 hours to off-gas. The primer is dry to touch in one hour. but the acid needs at least 24 hours to leave the primer for top coating. James --- On Sat, 10/29/11, Denis Buggy wrote: From: Denis Buggy Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, October 29, 2011, 5:16 PM   - DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND DENIS BUGGY Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26865|26813|2011-10-30 14:56:20|scott|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... > > well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. > > maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... | 26866|26813|2011-10-30 16:00:42|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Yes, steel does have this "give" factor where it will dent up before being punctured and this gives them an insurance edge ... that is one thing I like about steel ... and usually with the bigger boats, there is outer hull and an inner hull ... not long ago, there is one navy submarine running into a wall of dirt that was raised underwater in an earthquake ... apparently its outer skin in its bow got smashed, but the inner pressure hull wasn't ... And as to the "denting" the concrete ... I don't think it is of any concern especially since I am looking at using it chiefly in waters way off shorelines, where there is not much to bump into ... and if it is 7 - 10" thick, it does take a lot to smash it! ... besides ... I am not expecting to go fast, either ... chances are small that forces needed to destroy it is not there for me to worry about ... and as to concrete ... The thing I like about it is that it is "moldable" ... much like the clay in sculpture ... it makes it easier for me to smooth curves out and mold various parts into one smooth body ... I do not have this skill to be that good with steel yet The weight factor ... is not that much of a concern with the submarines, as it does help with reducing the need for ballast, for one thing ... --- On Sun, 10/30/11, scott wrote: From: scott Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 2:56 PM   umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... > > well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. > > maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26867|26867|2011-10-30 20:07:34|Denis Buggy|Re: ferrocement boat|ROY I HAD TO CONCRETE ABOUT AN ACRE AND A HALF IN THE PAST 3 YEARS AND I BOUGHT AN SCRAP CEMENT MIXER --HINO 7.5 CUBIC METER AND GOT IT WORKING AND HAD MY FIGURES DONE AND BOUGHT 2 BOOKS ON BATCHING CONCRETE AND THOUGHT I KNEW SOMETHING AND I WOULD BEAT THE HIGH PRICES CHARGED FOR A DELIVERY == LOCALLY APPROX 800.00 EUROS FOR 10 CUBIC METERS -- IT WAS A DISASTER I HAD TO ABANDON MY PLANS WHEN A FRIEND WHO IS AN ENGINEER FOR A CO WHICH CRUSHES OLD CONCRETE TO USE AGAIN FOR NEW = ( CARBON CREDITS FOR STATE OR PLC COMPANIES WHO MUST BUY CARBON CREDITS ) ADVISED ME HOW CONCRETE IS MADE AND MY DISCOUNTED MATERIALS WOULD LOOK LIKE CONCRETE POUR LIKE CONCRETE BUT THAT WAS IT . TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO NEEDS GOOD RESEARCH AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE YOUR INGREDIENTS VERY CAREFULLY - THE STONE WILL HAVE TO BE STONE CHIPS OF A SPECIAL SIZE AND SHARPNESS OF PROFILE TO WORK PROPERLY AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF INGREDIENTS USED FOR SPECIAL EFFECTS -- FROM FIBERGLASS TO PLASTICIZER THE QUALITY OF CEMENT VARIES CONSIDERABLY AND CAN CAUSE DISASTER EVEN WHEN USED BY PROFESSIONALS -- WE HAVE A LOCAL BRIDGE LESS THAN A YEAR OLD AND IT IS CONDEMNED AS THEY USED SPANISH CEMENT IN ONE SECTION AND IT IS DRYING AT A DIFFERENT RATE TO THE REMAINDER . CONCRETE WAS FIRST USED BY THE ROMANS OVER 2000 YEARS AGO AND SOME OF THEIR WORK IS STILL HARDENING SLOWLY . THE WW2 LIBERTY SHIPS WERE MADE BY GUNITING -- AS ARE MOST USA SWIMMING POOLS MADE BY SPRAYING CONCRETE ONTO MESH USING THE CLAY AS THE MOULD - THE CEMENT AND SAND AND WATER ARE MIXED AT THE NOZZLE TIP WHILE SPRAYING -- AND THEN A MANAGEMENT REGIME IS PUT IN PLACE TO KEEP THE CEMENT DAMP AND TO PREVENT IT DESTROYING ITSELF BY DRYING TOO FAST -- YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AS YOU CAN END UP WITH A DISASTER BY PRETENDING YOU KNOW SOMETHING -- FROM ONE WHO KNOWS A LITTLE ABOUT DISASTER . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Roy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear Yes, steel does have this "give" factor where it will dent up before being punctured and this gives them an insurance edge ... that is one thing I like about steel ... and usually with the bigger boats, there is outer hull and an inner hull ... not long ago, there is one navy submarine running into a wall of dirt that was raised underwater in an earthquake ... apparently its outer skin in its bow got smashed, but the inner pressure hull wasn't ... And as to the "denting" the concrete ... I don't think it is of any concern especially since I am looking at using it chiefly in waters way off shorelines, where there is not much to bump into ... and if it is 7 - 10" thick, it does take a lot to smash it! ... besides ... I am not expecting to go fast, either ... chances are small that forces needed to destroy it is not there for me to worry about ... and as to concrete ... The thing I like about it is that it is "moldable" ... much like the clay in sculpture ... it makes it easier for me to smooth curves out and mold various parts into one smooth body ... I do not have this skill to be that good with steel yet The weight factor ... is not that much of a concern with the submarines, as it does help with reducing the need for ballast, for one thing ... --- On Sun, 10/30/11, scott wrote: From: scott Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 2:56 PM umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... > > well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. > > maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26868|26813|2011-10-30 22:24:10|Matt Malone|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|One can have a very large boat in ferrocement, reasonably cheaply. Cement is about $100 a cubic yard -- about 3 tons -- at 6" thick, that is 6 square yards. Steel is about $100 for 100 pounds -- enough to do 2-3 square yards. Resin (fibreglass) is about $100 a gallon -- about 15 pounds -- and glass is not cheap. One should not be too attached to a ferrocement boat though. It is harder to keep the steel from losing a significant fraction of its strength. When the rust in the reinforcement is bad, it is about as valuable as a cored fibreglass boat with water in the core. There was a really big ferrocement boat here in Toronto that was for sale. It needed some work, but it is a "fresh" water lake so, it was not unsalvagable. The marina just wanted rid of it. And no marina in Toronto would allow it in. One up-side of ferrocement is, cement is porous. Once the sealant is off either the inside or outside, the excess moisture will leave it reasonably quickly and it can be re-sealed. The downside of ferrocement is, it is porous. Once the sealant if off either the inside or the outside, if it is still in the water, moisture will impregnate to the reinforcement, and leave the inside moist if not pooling water. Also, as great as the loads it might take, cement is brittle. Fibreglass has a lot of spring in it, and steel has a lot of plasticity. At 7" to 10" thick, one has to remember, there is a lot of inertia, and next to no elasticity and no plasticity. It is your own inertia that will cause hole,s not the rock leaping up from the bottom to strike you boat. I would sooner go for steel, Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: DeafMessianic@... Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:00:40 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear Yes, steel does have this "give" factor where it will dent up before being punctured and this gives them an insurance edge ... that is one thing I like about steel ... and usually with the bigger boats, there is outer hull and an inner hull ... not long ago, there is one navy submarine running into a wall of dirt that was raised underwater in an earthquake ... apparently its outer skin in its bow got smashed, but the inner pressure hull wasn't ... And as to the "denting" the concrete ... I don't think it is of any concern especially since I am looking at using it chiefly in waters way off shorelines, where there is not much to bump into ... and if it is 7 - 10" thick, it does take a lot to smash it! ... besides ... I am not expecting to go fast, either ... chances are small that forces needed to destroy it is not there for me to worry about ... and as to concrete ... The thing I like about it is that it is "moldable" ... much like the clay in sculpture ... it makes it easier for me to smooth curves out and mold various parts into one smooth body ... I do not have this skill to be that good with steel yet The weight factor ... is not that much of a concern with the submarines, as it does help with reducing the need for ballast, for one thing ... --- On Sun, 10/30/11, scott wrote: From: scott Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 2:56 PM umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... > > well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. > > maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26869|26813|2011-10-30 22:24:33|Kim|Re: ferrocement boat Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Hi Roy ... The first "big" boat I built for myself was a ferrocement yacht - a centerboard "Shoalwater 31" design by Len Hedges. It had 3" deep truss frames at 3' centers, main reinforcing was 3"x1"x1/4" welded mesh which was covered on both sides by a single layer of light 1/2"x1/2" welded mesh. Thousands of wire ties at about 2" centers. The finished hull skin was a bit over 1/2" thick. Given a good design, ferrocement does not necessarily always mean "heavy". As Denis has already pointed out, the type of plaster, the cement components, the various additives, the type and size of aggregate, the water content, and how it's mixed, is absolutely and utterly critical!! To give just one small example: there's a chemical (the name of which I have now forgotten) that must be added (in trace amounts) to the mix to prevent the lime in the cement reacting with the galvanising on the reinforcement - leave that out and you will have a floating disaster on your hands. On "plastering day" I gathered a huge crowd of friends and family to help (about 150 signed the visitors book!) with 5 large cement mixers running at once. The plastering was done in one hit and was finished in less than 3 hours!! The boat was then covered in water hoses, sealed in plastic, and allowed to cure for 5 weeks. The curing process used a massive amount of water. After it was cured, Len Hedges told me to fill the hull to the gunnels with water to test the hull strength, which it passed. All that was over 30 years ago. Although I sold the boat a long time ago, it's still going strong! A French guy by the name of Joseph-Louis Lambot built a ferrocement dinghy in 1848 and apparently it still floats. There are numerous stories on the web of ferro boats surviving extraordinary conditions. So I'm not at all averse to ferrocement boats. But ... Building a ferro hull will take you far longer than any other type of construction. It's unbelievably labour-intensive! The hull can be very low maintenance; but only of you get your cement mix absolutely perfect. The hull strength will be much the same (maybe a bit less) than a similar planked timber boat. It will have extremely low abrasive resistance (such as gently rubbing against rock or coral). Hitting something sharp (such as a submerged container or log) will pretty easily pierce the hull. During the 1970's it seemed every man and his dog was building a ferro boat; but not any more. It's been decades since I've seen anyone building in ferro. In Australia, it is almost completely impossible to obtain any type of insurance, at any price, for any type of ferrocement boat. There are good reasons for that! Cheers ... Kim. ____________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > Yes, steel does have this "give" factor where it will dent up before being punctured and this gives them an insurance edge ... that is one thing I like about steel ... > > and usually with the bigger boats, there is outer hull and an inner hull ... not long ago, there is one navy submarine running into a wall of dirt that was raised underwater in an earthquake ... apparently its outer skin in its bow got smashed, but the inner pressure hull wasn't ... > > And as to the "denting" the concrete ... I don't think it is of any > concern especially since I am looking at using it chiefly in waters > way off shorelines, where there is not much to bump into ... and if it is 7 - 10" thick, it does take a lot to smash it! ... > > besides ... I am not expecting to go fast, either ... chances are small that forces needed to destroy it is not there for me to worry about ... > > and as to concrete ... The thing I like about it is that it is "moldable" ... much like the clay in sculpture ... it makes it easier for me to smooth curves out and mold various parts into one smooth body ... I do not have this skill to be that good with steel yet > > The weight factor ... is not that much of a concern with the submarines, as it does help with reducing the need for ballast, for one thing ... > > --- On Sun, 10/30/11, scott wrote: > > From: scott > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 2:56 PM > > umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. > > Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. > > I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. > > scott ____________________________________________ | 26870|26813|2011-10-30 23:06:18|Paul Wilson|Re: ferrocement boat Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|When I was in Hawaii, a 50 foot ferro-cement yacht went on the rocks and broke up after a few hours. I was helping the next day pull the pieces up on to the beach. I climbed on a large half of the hull and swung a sledge hammer with my full strength against the hull. The hammer just bounced back but after several swings small cracks appeared which soon grew to large cracks and then the cement started crumbling. Once I got a hole through the cement, it was relatively easy to keep the hole going as long as I hit anywhere near the edge of it as the cement continued to quickly crumble away from the steel wire. The strongest part of the boat I could see was the teak rubbing strake that went along the side of the hull. Prior to the grounding, the owner had often bragged about how well his boat was built....it did look beautiful and was amazingly fair but after that experience I had much less confidence in ferro-cement. There is far too much work involved in building a boat to use a material that has no resale value. Cheers, Paul| 26871|26743|2011-10-31 02:56:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: anodes performance|On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:41:35AM -0700, James Pronk wrote: > Could you put a coat of cheap house paint on the bottom and around the waterline? When I bought "Ulysses", the previous owners had painted the boat with cheap house paint (weirdly enough, after sandblasting.) The steel under the paint began rusting immediately; I had to get it all blasted off and repainted properly. > How hard would it be to sandblast it off. Would it be to much trouble? Not noticeably different from blasting old epoxy. It's not so much the paint that's the problem - it's the rust under 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| 26872|26743|2011-10-31 10:59:50|brentswain38|Re: anodes performance|You could. Not hard to sandblast off. It is free in many recycling depots. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Could you put a coat of cheap house paint on the bottom and around the waterline? > How hard would it be to sandblast it off. Would it be to much trouble? > James  > > --- On Tue, 10/18/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 9:49 PM > > > >   > > > > I once met a guy in Nelson New Zealand who had built a 36 ft Matangi motor sailor in Australia , then found out sand blasting was much cheaper in New Zealand. So he rigged her and sailed her,all bare rusty steel, across the Tasman to New Zealand, no problem. It is a 1400 mile passage. > I don't think you would have a problem, in less than a month. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > the reason I asked is if I'd have enough time to bring my boat south and finish the sandblasting and painting down there. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: opusnz@ > > > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:03 +1300 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: anodes performance > > > > > > I think you would have terrible corrosion around the waterline. Paul > > > > > > On 18/10/2011 8:39 a.m., brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > > The bottoms of my keels have been bare steel for most of the last 27 > > > > years and I see no major corrosion on them. The more steel exposed, > > > > the more zincs you need, but too much zinc causes paint to blister. > > > > Don't know how it would work with no paint, but you certainly don't > > > > have to cover all steel if you have adequate zincs welded on. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > , mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > if someone uses his steel sailboat unpainted , how long will it > > > > takes for the hull to rust if many anodes are used? > > > > > > > > > > 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] > | 26873|26867|2011-10-31 14:54:01|Roy|Re: ferrocement boat|haha ... I know it is very tricky ... my family have been into concrete business for generations and have done many big projects ... it is something we are comfortable with ... There are some concrete subs out there that are doing well, and they will be my main source of information as to the specifics of mixes, etc ... and we do have some engineers in the family who would help, too ... at this point, it is very much up in air which route I would go, steel or concrete, and it mostly depends on what the sub would be like ... --- On Sun, 10/30/11, Denis Buggy wrote: From: Denis Buggy Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ferrocement boat To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 8:07 PM   ROY I HAD TO CONCRETE ABOUT AN ACRE AND A HALF IN THE PAST 3 YEARS AND I BOUGHT AN SCRAP CEMENT MIXER --HINO 7.5 CUBIC METER AND GOT IT WORKING AND HAD MY FIGURES DONE AND BOUGHT 2 BOOKS ON BATCHING CONCRETE AND THOUGHT I KNEW SOMETHING AND I WOULD BEAT THE HIGH PRICES CHARGED FOR A DELIVERY == LOCALLY APPROX 800.00 EUROS FOR 10 CUBIC METERS -- IT WAS A DISASTER I HAD TO ABANDON MY PLANS WHEN A FRIEND WHO IS AN ENGINEER FOR A CO WHICH CRUSHES OLD CONCRETE TO USE AGAIN FOR NEW = ( CARBON CREDITS FOR STATE OR PLC COMPANIES WHO MUST BUY CARBON CREDITS ) ADVISED ME HOW CONCRETE IS MADE AND MY DISCOUNTED MATERIALS WOULD LOOK LIKE CONCRETE POUR LIKE CONCRETE BUT THAT WAS IT . TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO NEEDS GOOD RESEARCH AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE YOUR INGREDIENTS VERY CAREFULLY - THE STONE WILL HAVE TO BE STONE CHIPS OF A SPECIAL SIZE AND SHARPNESS OF PROFILE TO WORK PROPERLY AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF INGREDIENTS USED FOR SPECIAL EFFECTS -- FROM FIBERGLASS TO PLASTICIZER THE QUALITY OF CEMENT VARIES CONSIDERABLY AND CAN CAUSE DISASTER EVEN WHEN USED BY PROFESSIONALS -- WE HAVE A LOCAL BRIDGE LESS THAN A YEAR OLD AND IT IS CONDEMNED AS THEY USED SPANISH CEMENT IN ONE SECTION AND IT IS DRYING AT A DIFFERENT RATE TO THE REMAINDER . CONCRETE WAS FIRST USED BY THE ROMANS OVER 2000 YEARS AGO AND SOME OF THEIR WORK IS STILL HARDENING SLOWLY . THE WW2 LIBERTY SHIPS WERE MADE BY GUNITING -- AS ARE MOST USA SWIMMING POOLS MADE BY SPRAYING CONCRETE ONTO MESH USING THE CLAY AS THE MOULD - THE CEMENT AND SAND AND WATER ARE MIXED AT THE NOZZLE TIP WHILE SPRAYING -- AND THEN A MANAGEMENT REGIME IS PUT IN PLACE TO KEEP THE CEMENT DAMP AND TO PREVENT IT DESTROYING ITSELF BY DRYING TOO FAST -- YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AS YOU CAN END UP WITH A DISASTER BY PRETENDING YOU KNOW SOMETHING -- FROM ONE WHO KNOWS A LITTLE ABOUT DISASTER . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Roy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear Yes, steel does have this "give" factor where it will dent up before being punctured and this gives them an insurance edge ... that is one thing I like about steel ... and usually with the bigger boats, there is outer hull and an inner hull ... not long ago, there is one navy submarine running into a wall of dirt that was raised underwater in an earthquake ... apparently its outer skin in its bow got smashed, but the inner pressure hull wasn't ... And as to the "denting" the concrete ... I don't think it is of any concern especially since I am looking at using it chiefly in waters way off shorelines, where there is not much to bump into ... and if it is 7 - 10" thick, it does take a lot to smash it! ... besides ... I am not expecting to go fast, either ... chances are small that forces needed to destroy it is not there for me to worry about ... and as to concrete ... The thing I like about it is that it is "moldable" ... much like the clay in sculpture ... it makes it easier for me to smooth curves out and mold various parts into one smooth body ... I do not have this skill to be that good with steel yet The weight factor ... is not that much of a concern with the submarines, as it does help with reducing the need for ballast, for one thing ... --- On Sun, 10/30/11, scott wrote: From: scott Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 2:56 PM umm.. I have looked into ferocement boats extensively and I don't think they are even close to as light and strong as steel or aluminium. Not saying you can't make a very nice boat out it but they have a reputation from being heavy and you being able to punch holes in them that would just leave a big dent in a steel boat. Same situation as fiberglass.. They just don't give much comparatively where the metals will bend and then deform before cracking or tearing. I would never ever build a ferrocement boat. I would think about buying a nice one used. You just about can't give one away so they make a very good value used for the buyer. Not so much for the seller. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > yeah ... it is a beautiful coating ... > > well, personally, I don't like aluminum anyway and probably would not build anything with it ... especially when it is something big ... too expensive ... and not as indestructible as concrete and steel. > > maybe I am just being old-fashioned here ... [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] | 26874|26813|2011-10-31 15:24:23|Roy|Re: ferrocement boat (will move this over to [Int P&M-Subs])|OK this will address specifically the "labor intensive" part of construction of concrete subs ... one idea I am toying with is pre-molding "staves" and blocks ... before assembling those together using mortar ...  this should make it a lot easier the seed for this idea came from two sources ... concrete silos and from studying the pictures of the concrete sub that was in construction recently ... I may be wrong, but looking closely at the pictures, there is traces of "blocks" that was used in its assembly, and besides that, the fact that its sail wasn't added until the whole sub was out by the water ... in this case, it was at least weeks before the sail was added it tells me that it doesn't have to be all done in one shot! one nice thing about the subs is that the water pressure is exerted evenly all over, inwards to the center ... it helps make the above possible, that it would compress those pieces together just some thoughts going thru my head right now --- On Sun, 10/30/11, Paul Wilson wrote: From: Paul Wilson Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ferrocement boat Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 11:06 PM   When I was in Hawaii, a 50 foot ferro-cement yacht went on the rocks and broke up after a few hours. I was helping the next day pull the pieces up on to the beach. I climbed on a large half of the hull and swung a sledge hammer with my full strength against the hull. The hammer just bounced back but after several swings small cracks appeared which soon grew to large cracks and then the cement started crumbling. Once I got a hole through the cement, it was relatively easy to keep the hole going as long as I hit anywhere near the edge of it as the cement continued to quickly crumble away from the steel wire. The strongest part of the boat I could see was the teak rubbing strake that went along the side of the hull. Prior to the grounding, the owner had often bragged about how well his boat was built....it did look beautiful and was amazingly fair but after that experience I had much less confidence in ferro-cement. There is far too much work involved in building a boat to use a material that has no resale value. Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26875|26813|2011-10-31 18:21:25|scott|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|7 to 10 inches thick? other than for maybe the keel with ballast in it that doesn't sound like ferro cement. A well done ferrocement hull will only be at most about an inch thick. With 7 to 10 layers of wire covered with cement.. It is an incredibly labor intensive building method. You will probably spend a year building the strong back and attaching the layer after layer of the wire mesh. There is actually a lot of steel in a ferrocement hull. I would price out the cost of the wire and rebar needed as well as all the wire needed to tie each layer to the next. You will also have to as soon as the hull is covered with cement need to cover it and steam it for a week or so. To get the hull properly covered in cement you will need a team of 5 or 6 people trowling it on to get it on fast enough that one part the boat cures before another part. All the people trowling need to be very experienced to do a good job. There are a lot of gotchas in building a quality ferrocement hull. and I wouldn't want to risk my life any any boat that didn't have quality involved its hulls construction. I have collin brooks book on building ferro cement boats in the shelf in front of me. You should try to get a copy before jumping in that project. You could learn to weld at a tech school course and build a steel boat for about the same cost I would bet and have it in the water in 1/4 the time. scott carle At 7" to 10" thick, one has to remember, there is a lot of inertia, and next to no elasticity and no plasticity. It is your own inertia that will cause hole,s not the rock leaping up from the bottom to strike you boat. > > I would sooner go for steel, > | 26876|26813|2011-11-01 03:11:49|mickeyolaf|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Clean the aluminum with abrasive round pads (I used the purple ones, black is too abrasive) on a feather edger. The metal will come up almost like stainless. The pads leave a good tooth. Wipe the aluminum down with the solvent de-greaser PT 36 using the paper towels mentioned below. The paper towels will initially come up up black. A couple of wipes with the de-greaser and the towels will come up clean. Then wipe with water and clean white paper towels, the strong 2 layer ones that are available at janitor supply outlets in big 8 inch rolls. Fast dry with a big fan. Roll or spray on 2 part SteelCote high build epoxy primer (with Add-a-Lume) with 6-12 hours between coats then a couple of coats of SteelCote epoxy paint in the color of your choice. Allow a full cure for a week. This paint system will never come off your aluminum. Then wet sand the paint for tooth and apply your anti-fouling. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > | 26877|26796|2011-11-01 04:22:18|brentswain38|Re: wind turbine at Can. Tire|One my 36 footers, coming home to BC from Hawaii, encountered hurricane force winds. His KISS wind generator was locked by the electric switch. It billowed smoke like a chimney as it burned up. To stop mine, I have a handle on the back, angled down at a 45 degree angle , easy to get hold of. I pull the unit sideways to the wind until it stops, then put a 1/8th inch ss S hook, on a line attached to the pole, thru a hole in the end of the blade. That stops it . An identical hole in each blade keeps the balance the same. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Yes, I have never bought it or used it, but, here is my appraisal after looking at it repeatedly, and discussing similar wind turbines with a racing sailor. > > 600 Watts is the power it will put out just before it explodes, melts, or catches fire, in a very high wind. You will get a lot less out of it. > > It may have a electromagnetic brake, which essentially just shorts the output to make it hard to turn. If the wind is strong enough to make it turn despite the brake, then all the energy from the wind is wasted in the windings of the generator, because no energy can be consumed by a dead short -- zero voltage times any current is zero power. Therefore, the day that the electromagnetic brake is insufficient, it will melt, explode or catch fire. I would have a binding cord or net at hand that I can fling into the prop to stop it.... Yes, that might be messy, but it will burn itself out otherwise, so, it is a last ditch effort. > > I would make it easily un-mountable (but locked) and connected by a simple plug so that it can be stored, or at least strapped down to the deck. I would take it down and leave it strapped down whenever I am not on the boat for more than a few days -- where I do not know the weather forecast. During these times, I would rely on solar to keep the batteries up, keep the mooring light lit, whatever. > > > I also might consider modifying it to a self-furling design. The diagrams here are informative, I have not read the text: > > http://120thingsin20years.blogspot.com/2011/01/wind-energy-vane-furling.html > > This one shows a better view of an actual welded-up hub piece of a self-furling turbine that is based on a automotive wheel spindle, and home made generator. He shows a lot of magnet and generator stuff, you could ignore that and just look at the geometry of the off-center rotation axis, and the off-angle and tilted tail vane rotation axis. (skip down to 9/19/07) > > http://www.briery.com/wind_turbine/build_log2.html > > Yes, the tail vane boom lifts as it pivots around that upward sloping axis, so that, when the wind is very strong, it is lifted and and the vane boom and plane of the blades becomes more parallel, so the blades are facing off the wind. When the wind dies down again, the weight of the boom causes it to pivot back and drop so that the boom is more perpendicular to the plane of the blades, holding the blades into the wind. In this man's home made residential generator, he still has a hydraulic brake, so he does not have to climb the tower and redo 2 years of work if there is a bad storm. > > Making an existing turbine into a self-furling turbine is as simple as mounting the vertical rotation axis off to one side, and mounting a hinging tail vane on it at a particular angle. If one can build an entire boat, a hinging tail vane of the correct angles will be easy. As the wind blows harder, it changes angle to the wind and plateaus out in energy output. At low wind speeds, it stays face-on to the wind and gets the same power as it would unmodified. > > However, I might just buy it, strap it on my boat and know I am going to lose it in the first really good storm, and just stow it when I am not using the boat / expecting a storm. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:17:26 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] wind turbine at Can. Tire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a wind turbine advertise at Can Tire this week at$ 600.oo > > (600 watts), I remember there was a discussion before about wind turbines on a sailboat. I'd like to know how reliable this model could be. > > (sunforce, their brand name) > > the wings are made of composite . > > any advices? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26878|26878|2011-11-01 11:25:54|chris123|search function|Greets: New to the group. Was wondering if there is a better way to search the archives and posts then using the yahoo search feature. Was wondering since its an open list, if its been archived by any of the available search engines. Best regards and thanks -- /ch| 26879|26878|2011-11-01 20:03:55|James Pronk|Re: search function|Hey Chris Its good to see you here James --- On Tue, 11/1/11, chris123 wrote: From: chris123 Subject: [origamiboats] search function To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 9:57 AM   Greets: New to the group. Was wondering if there is a better way to search the archives and posts then using the yahoo search feature. Was wondering since its an open list, if its been archived by any of the available search engines. Best regards and thanks -- /ch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26880|26878|2011-11-01 20:41:41|chris123|Re: search function|Thanks James...llikewise To be honest the thought process is slowly evolving towards a metal boat of some kind some day. Lots of questions hence the search related question as Im sure all the details and basics have been addressed a few time or more...:) /ch On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM, James Pronk wrote: > ** > > > Hey Chris > Its good to see you here > James > -- /ch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26881|26867|2011-11-01 21:51:16|fmdepiolenc|Re: ferrocement boat|I have been a self-confessed ferrocement freak since my teens, and have collected all the information I can get about concrete and ferrocement ships and boats, and especially about submarines. Not that I have much. I would love to exchange whatever I have that you don't for whatever you have and I don't. I'm especially interested in any existing ferro subs. If that's okay with you, please contact me off-list. Best, Marc de Piolenc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > haha ... I know it is very tricky ... > my family have been into concrete business for generations and have done many big projects ... it is something we are comfortable with ... > There are some concrete subs out there that are doing well, | 26882|26813|2011-11-01 21:52:21|Roy|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|First, I can weld well already, and no need for schooling for that. And some of my friends are professional welders who will lend me a hand .... I may go steel ... I already have some huge old propane storage tanks of different sizes, that I am thinking to use for the pressure hull ... a big problem is that it stinks inside, and am not sure of how much of the steel is still there, after rust did its damage ... may have to cut out and weld in some patches ... a little messy, difficult to handle, needing big trucks for transport, etc ... gets expensive ... Concrete, on other hand, is all there in place, by the river ... Costs for either one is about the same for me ...  except that with concrete, it is a lot easier and a lot less headache ... Ferro cement is thin and is OK for use up on surface, but at 300' down, it will squash like aluminum can ... unless you go a lot thicker, which means much more problems and work ... I know ... my friend built one 32 footer, and I saw how it was ... it is not the route to go! Looking at the one concrete sub in construction, I can see the walls were at least 6 - 7 inches thick ... even said so in the article with it ... This method, apparently using blocks, is a lot faster ... I'm not exactly clear on details but working on it. At this point, all I know is that I may go either way ... --- On Mon, 10/31/11, scott wrote: From: scott Subject: [origamiboats] Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, October 31, 2011, 6:21 PM   7 to 10 inches thick? other than for maybe the keel with ballast in it that doesn't sound like ferro cement. A well done ferrocement hull will only be at most about an inch thick. With 7 to 10 layers of wire covered with cement.. It is an incredibly labor intensive building method. You will probably spend a year building the strong back and attaching the layer after layer of the wire mesh. There is actually a lot of steel in a ferrocement hull. I would price out the cost of the wire and rebar needed as well as all the wire needed to tie each layer to the next. You will also have to as soon as the hull is covered with cement need to cover it and steam it for a week or so. To get the hull properly covered in cement you will need a team of 5 or 6 people trowling it on to get it on fast enough that one part the boat cures before another part. All the people trowling need to be very experienced to do a good job. There are a lot of gotchas in building a quality ferrocement hull. and I wouldn't want to risk my life any any boat that didn't have quality involved its hulls construction. I have collin brooks book on building ferro cement boats in the shelf in front of me. You should try to get a copy before jumping in that project. You could learn to weld at a tech school course and build a steel boat for about the same cost I would bet and have it in the water in 1/4 the time. scott carle At 7" to 10" thick, one has to remember, there is a lot of inertia, and next to no elasticity and no plasticity. It is your own inertia that will cause hole,s not the rock leaping up from the bottom to strike you boat. > > I would sooner go for steel, > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26883|26878|2011-11-01 22:47:37|Ben Okopnik|Re: search function|On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 09:57:08AM -0400, chris123 wrote: > Greets: > > New to the group. Was wondering if there is a better way to search the > archives and posts then using the yahoo search feature. Was wondering > since its an open list, if its been archived by any of the available > search engines. I'm mirroring/archiving the group here: http://okopnik.com/origami/ I've also written a pretty decent search engine for it (see the "advanced search help" link for extended search options.) 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| 26884|26867|2011-11-01 23:24:09|Roy|Re: ferrocement boat|Finally! a friend and a fellow believer!  likewise, I do not have much ... only found a few sites online about ferrocement submarines ... gleaning whatever information I can ... are you working on a sub, too? --- On Tue, 11/1/11, fmdepiolenc wrote: From: fmdepiolenc Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ferrocement boat To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 9:51 PM   I have been a self-confessed ferrocement freak since my teens, and have collected all the information I can get about concrete and ferrocement ships and boats, and especially about submarines. Not that I have much. I would love to exchange whatever I have that you don't for whatever you have and I don't. I'm especially interested in any existing ferro subs. If that's okay with you, please contact me off-list. Best, Marc de Piolenc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > haha ... I know it is very tricky ... > my family have been into concrete business for generations and have done many big projects ... it is something we are comfortable with ... > There are some concrete subs out there that are doing well, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26885|26878|2011-11-02 09:47:27|chris123|Re: search function|Gee Ben...really like your email address. Good to know some linux folks are on the list. This makes stuff a lot easier. Thanks for doing this. /ch On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 09:57:08AM -0400, chris123 wrote: > > Greets: > > > > New to the group. Was wondering if there is a better way to search the > > archives and posts then using the yahoo search feature. Was wondering > > since its an open list, if its been archived by any of the available > > search engines. > > I'm mirroring/archiving the group here: > > http://okopnik.com/origami/ > > I've also written a pretty decent search engine for it (see the > "advanced search help" link for extended search options.) > > 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 > > > -- /ch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26886|26878|2011-11-02 16:43:42|jhess314|Re: search function|You can do a search of the MESSAGES using Google with a search syntax like this: twin keel site:groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats However, I don't think you can search PHOTOS or FILES with Google. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 09:57:08AM -0400, chris123 wrote: > > Greets: > > > > New to the group. Was wondering if there is a better way to search the > > archives and posts then using the yahoo search feature. Was wondering > > since its an open list, if its been archived by any of the available > > search engines. > > I'm mirroring/archiving the group here: > > http://okopnik.com/origami/ > > I've also written a pretty decent search engine for it (see the > "advanced search help" link for extended search options.) > > > 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 > | 26887|26867|2011-11-02 20:33:45|Marc|Re: ferrocement boat|Right now I'm not working on anything except my usual packrat-style accumulation of technical information. I've got a family of five (household of 7) plus a double squad of cats to feed, and my income went down the toilet in 2008. Just recovering now, but where I live (the Philippines) is ideal for aquatic activity, given about seven thousand miles of shoreline! My private email address is piolenc@.... Give me a buzz and we can start passing files back and forth. Best, Marc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > Finally! > > a friend and a fellow believer!  > > likewise, I do not have much ... only found a few sites online about ferrocement submarines ... gleaning whatever information I can ... > > are you working on a sub, too? | 26888|26867|2011-11-03 05:02:09|Bruno Ogorelec|Re: ferrocement boat|Marc, are you the guy who trades in technical literature? A very long time ago I was looking for a truly obscure text on pulsating combustion and could only find it with someone in the Philippines. Was that you? You must have an amazing collection. Bruno On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Marc wrote: > ** > > > Right now I'm not working on anything except my usual packrat-style > accumulation of technical information. I've got a family of five (household > of 7) plus a double squad of cats to feed, and my income went down the > toilet in 2008. Just recovering now, but where I live (the Philippines) is > ideal for aquatic activity, given about seven thousand miles of shoreline! > > My private email address is piolenc@.... Give me a buzz and we > can start passing files back and forth. > > Best, > Marc > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > > > Finally! > > > > a friend and a fellow believer!� > > > > likewise, I do not have much ... only found a few sites online about > ferrocement submarines ... gleaning whatever information I can ... > > > > are you working on a sub, too? > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26889|26878|2011-11-03 07:13:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: search function|On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:47:25AM -0400, chris123 wrote: > Gee Ben...really like your email address. Good to know some linux folks are > on the list. This makes stuff a lot easier. Thanks for doing this. Glad to help, Chris. As far as LG goes, though - I handed it off to a team of editors a couple of months ago; five years of running it was more than enough, and my other commitments have just grown a bit too large. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to handle it, so that looks to be the end of it. Very sad, since it was the premier free Web resource for Linux info under my editorship... but I just can't carry it anymore. 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| 26890|26813|2011-11-03 07:24:24|scott|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Sorry I was thinking you were talking about a boat in the 30 to 50 ft range. I don't know anything at all about submarines :) especially in ferrocement. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > First, I can weld well already, and no need for schooling for that. And some of my friends are professional welders who will lend me a hand .... > > > > I may go steel ... I already have some huge old propane storage tanks of > different sizes, that I am thinking to use for the pressure hull ... a > big problem is that it stinks inside, and am not sure of how much of the > steel is still there, after rust did its damage ... may have to cut out > and weld in some patches ... a little messy, difficult to handle, > needing big trucks for transport, etc ... gets expensive ... > > Concrete, on other hand, is all there in place, by the river ... > > > > Costs for either one is about the same for me ...  except that with concrete, it is a lot easier and a lot less headache ... > > > Ferro cement is thin and is OK for use up on surface, but at 300' down, it will squash like aluminum can ... unless you go a lot thicker, which means much more problems and work ... I know ... my friend built one 32 footer, and I saw how it was ... it is not the route to go! > > Looking at the one concrete sub in construction, I can see the walls > were at least 6 - 7 inches thick ... even said so in the article with it > ... > > This method, apparently using blocks, is a lot faster ... I'm not exactly clear on details but working on it. > > At this point, all I know is that I may go either way ... > > > > > > > > > | 26891|26813|2011-11-03 10:07:48|jhess314|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|Mickey, Thanks to you, and everyone else who posted suggestions, on how to get paint to adhere to aluminum. Should be enough suggestions made for me to find something that works. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > Clean the aluminum with abrasive round pads (I used the purple ones, black is too abrasive) on a feather edger. The metal will come up almost like stainless. The pads leave a good tooth. > > Wipe the aluminum down with the solvent de-greaser PT 36 using the paper towels mentioned below. The paper towels will initially come up up black. A couple of wipes with the de-greaser and the towels will come up clean. > > Then wipe with water and clean white paper towels, the strong 2 layer ones that are available at janitor supply outlets in big 8 inch rolls. > > Fast dry with a big fan. > > Roll or spray on 2 part SteelCote high build epoxy primer (with Add-a-Lume) with 6-12 hours between coats then a couple of coats of SteelCote epoxy paint in the color of your choice. > > Allow a full cure for a week. This paint system will never come off your aluminum. > > Then wet sand the paint for tooth and apply your anti-fouling. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > BadPirate has recently posted photos of his aluminum BS36. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/1824922351/pic/list > > > > I'm wondering if folks with aluminum boats find that they get black "tarnish" on themselves or their gear when rubbing up against the aluminum? If so, is there an inexpensive way to paint or anodize the aluminum to stabilize it? > > > | 26892|26867|2011-11-03 20:43:32|Marc|Re: ferrocement boat|So THAT's why your name seems familiar. Yes, I'm that document dealer, and I do have a fantastic collection to which I am constantly adding. Unfortunately, some of my ferro books are still in cartons in the back of my 40-foot container, but a fair amount of stuff is out and available for scanning or copying, if it isn't already in digital form. I won't post the list of FC stuff in my catalog because this is not an FC list, but I will send it to you direct. Best regards, Marc de Piolenc dba: Archivale.com --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Bruno Ogorelec wrote: > > Marc, are you the guy who trades in technical literature? A very long time > ago I was looking for a truly obscure text on pulsating combustion and > could only find it with someone in the Philippines. Was that you? You > must have an amazing collection. > > Bruno > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Marc wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Right now I'm not working on anything except my usual packrat-style > > accumulation of technical information. I've got a family of five (household > > of 7) plus a double squad of cats to feed, and my income went down the > > toilet in 2008. Just recovering now, but where I live (the Philippines) is > > ideal for aquatic activity, given about seven thousand miles of shoreline! > > > > My private email address is piolenc@... Give me a buzz and we > > can start passing files back and forth. > > > > Best, > > Marc > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Roy wrote: > > > > > > Finally! > > > > > > a friend and a fellow believer! > > > > > > likewise, I do not have much ... only found a few sites online about > > ferrocement submarines ... gleaning whatever information I can ... > > > > > > are you working on a sub, too? > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26893|26878|2011-11-03 22:58:40|chris123|Re: search function|Sorry to here that as it was a good source for a while. I was hopping to sit and lurk on this list and learn about building origami steel boats. Not much traffic on that subject hence the archival approach. All is good, much to learn. /ch On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:47:25AM -0400, chris123 wrote: > > Gee Ben...really like your email address. Good to know some linux folks > are > > on the list. This makes stuff a lot easier. Thanks for doing this. > > Glad to help, Chris. As far as LG goes, though - I handed it off to a > team of editors a couple of months ago; five years of running it was > more than enough, and my other commitments have just grown a bit too > large. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to handle it, so that > looks to be the end of it. Very sad, since it was the premier free Web > resource for Linux info under my editorship... but I just can't carry it > anymore. > > > 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 > > > -- /ch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26894|26867|2011-11-04 01:27:14|Bruno Ogorelec|Re: ferrocement boat|Hahahahaha, the world is a small place. Good luck with your business. And yes, I'd like to see our list. Thanks. Bruno On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Marc wrote: > ** > > > So THAT's why your name seems familiar. > > Yes, I'm that document dealer, and I do have a fantastic collection to > which I am constantly adding. Unfortunately, some of my ferro books are > still in cartons in the back of my 40-foot container, but a fair amount of > stuff is out and available for scanning or copying, if it isn't already in > digital form. I won't post the list of FC stuff in my catalog because this > is not an FC list, but I will send it to you direct. > > Best regards, > Marc de Piolenc > dba: Archivale.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26895|26895|2011-11-04 16:31:09|badpirate36|Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side.| 26896|26895|2011-11-05 09:54:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 08:31:07PM -0000, badpirate36 wrote: > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna > pass some. > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not > sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few > long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 > gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water > maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any > rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and > smelly to the other side. Depends on you and your crew, of course - but it seems to me that you've already got the right attitude which is 90% of the game. Me, I found that cruising the Caribbean with a 35 gallon tank and 15 gallons worth of backup in jugs (in case of polluted water, etc. - never happened, though) never caused me any problems or worries, and that was without any catchment system for the first 3 or 4 years. I've read about an Englishman who crossed the Atlantic numerous times - with a crewman on board, no less - with only 30 gallons on board, and usually had a bit of water left when he pulled in. His trick was that he didn't have any pumps on board - just a hose into the top of the tank - and in order to get the water out, you had to blow into the tank to pressurize it. Since it took about a Wagnerian opera's worth of air to get a kettle of water out, the usage was just what was needed and not a drop more. :) As to being smelly at the end, not much reason for it - the ocean will happily supply as much water as you want for washing up. Both Dawn and Joy (dish soaps) lather up just fine in salt water; I'm told that Prell shampoo does also. 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| 26897|26895|2011-11-05 13:55:28|mauro gonzaga|ALU BS36|I have seen pictures of the badpirate in aluminum in construction.  Are those longitudinal in the original design? Seem to rigid to bend together with the plate. Which total weight has this boat and the weight of the ballast, please. mauro Mauro ________________________________ From: badpirate36 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 9:31 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Water capacity on a blue water boat.?   You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26898|26895|2011-11-05 17:20:36|brentswain38|Re: Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|I once left mexico with 28 gallons in a tank, which still had a lot in it 38 days later when I arived back in BC. I once left Bora bora with 55 gallons of water and arived in Hilo a month later with 50. I kept a bucket under the gooseneck and kept toping up the tank with rainwater from the tradewind squalls. The first few days out, I was being super careful with my water, the last week out I was washing everything in fresh water. A half gallon per day per person will keep you healthy. 80 gallons is more than enough. I've never had that much water, heading out to sea. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > | 26899|26895|2011-11-05 17:26:21|brentswain38|Re: ALU BS36|Total weight of any boat in full time use is dependent on the owner and how much of a pack rat he is. I gave Ercan the option of changing the centreline so she would float on her lines empty, or the original centreline, which would allow for several thousand pounds of personal effects. He wisely chose the later, having already done one cirucumnavigation. The boat is around 14,000lbs empty with 4500 lbs of ballast, much heavier once in use for a while. I just saw Winston's old 36 Dove 2 emptied out. She rose 6 inches in the water at 1150 lbs per inch immersion. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > I have seen pictures of the badpirate in aluminum in construction.  > Are those longitudinal in the original design? Seem to rigid to bend together with the plate. > Which total weight has this boat and the weight of the ballast, please. > mauro > > Mauro > > > > ________________________________ > From: badpirate36 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 9:31 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Water capacity on a blue water boat.? > > >   > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26900|26900|2011-11-05 19:39:42|martin demers|FW: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator|To: To-Your-Health@yahoogroups.com; GEM-Meditation@yahoogroups.com; OM-Letter@yahoogroups.com; Kombucha-Manna-International-News@yahoogroups.com; Whole-World-Watching@yahoogroups.com; original_kombucha@yahoogroups.com; Friends-Quotes@yahoogroups.com From: OM@... Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:03:29 -0400 Subject: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator Word is being spread in the Yahoo moderator group that there is some spoofing going around in several groups. A third party, using a member (or moderator/owner) email address, pretending to be them, is sending a message to the group something like this: We are closing this group. And This is final Warning. Because of spam messages we are not able to remain your membership in this group. If you wanted to keep the membership than you have to join the alternate group. Click On The below link And join the group. If you wanted to get some best stuff in your inbox instead of spam messages. Than Please don't wait and click on the link below and join it. This group will Close and this is the last warning to all the group members. So please click the link below and get the membership of this group. Where all of your messages will approve. And you can sent and receive the quality mails. Thanks Regards, Owner Group So BEWARE if you EVER see any message like this in ANY Yahoo group that you are in, including this one. Do NOT click on the link they are sending, and DO NOT believe what it is telling you about the group. I hope this never happens in our group, but since it apparently has hit many other groups I just want everyone to be forewarned. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26901|26895|2011-11-06 11:12:50|haidan|Re: ALU BS36|I had a party on my boat this summer in caddy bay. I counted them, I had 34 people on board at one time, boat sunk about three or four inches in the water, though it was a little hard to measure as people kept moving around from side to side, a bit like herding cats, but I figure that'll be the most loaded it'll ever be. Didn't go around asking everyones weight but I figure it was somewhere between 3500 and 4500 lbs --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Total weight of any boat in full time use is dependent on the owner and how much of a pack rat he is. I gave Ercan the option of changing the centreline so she would float on her lines empty, or the original centreline, which would allow for several thousand pounds of personal effects. He wisely chose the later, having already done one cirucumnavigation. > The boat is around 14,000lbs empty with 4500 lbs of ballast, much heavier once in use for a while. > I just saw Winston's old 36 Dove 2 emptied out. She rose 6 inches in the water at 1150 lbs per inch immersion. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > I have seen pictures of the badpirate in aluminum in construction.  > > Are those longitudinal in the original design? Seem to rigid to bend together with the plate. > > Which total weight has this boat and the weight of the ballast, please. > > mauro > > > > Mauro > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: badpirate36 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 9:31 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Water capacity on a blue water boat.? > > > > > >   > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26902|26895|2011-11-06 11:14:23|haidan|Re: ALU BS36|Also, thankfully due to the rails not a single person fell in the water all night. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "haidan" wrote: > > I had a party on my boat this summer in caddy bay. I counted them, I had 34 people on board at one time, boat sunk about three or four inches in the water, though it was a little hard to measure as people kept moving around from side to side, a bit like herding cats, but I figure that'll be the most loaded it'll ever be. Didn't go around asking everyones weight but I figure it was somewhere between 3500 and 4500 lbs > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Total weight of any boat in full time use is dependent on the owner and how much of a pack rat he is. I gave Ercan the option of changing the centreline so she would float on her lines empty, or the original centreline, which would allow for several thousand pounds of personal effects. He wisely chose the later, having already done one cirucumnavigation. > > The boat is around 14,000lbs empty with 4500 lbs of ballast, much heavier once in use for a while. > > I just saw Winston's old 36 Dove 2 emptied out. She rose 6 inches in the water at 1150 lbs per inch immersion. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > > > I have seen pictures of the badpirate in aluminum in construction.  > > > Are those longitudinal in the original design? Seem to rigid to bend together with the plate. > > > Which total weight has this boat and the weight of the ballast, please. > > > mauro > > > > > > Mauro > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: badpirate36 > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 9:31 PM > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Water capacity on a blue water boat.? > > > > > > > > >   > > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > > > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 26903|26900|2011-11-08 20:57:34|brentswain38|Re: FW: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator|I was geting similar messages threatening to close my yahoo acount, then asking for my password. When I asked yahoo about it, they said they never ask for you password except the one time you are signing up for a new account. Friends have had their info stolen this way, and their address was subsequently used to send spam. Uncle Sam has been demanding people's personal email passwords when crossing the border with a laptop. These they are free to sell on the black market later for their personal pocketmoney. Simple solution; dont go into the US with a computer, or better still, stay out of the US, period. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > To: To-Your-Health@yahoogroups.com; GEM-Meditation@yahoogroups.com; OM-Letter@yahoogroups.com; Kombucha-Manna-International-News@yahoogroups.com; Whole-World-Watching@yahoogroups.com; original_kombucha@yahoogroups.com; Friends-Quotes@yahoogroups.com > From: OM@... > Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:03:29 -0400 > Subject: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator > > > > > > Word is being spread in the Yahoo moderator group that there is some spoofing going around in several groups. A third party, using a member (or moderator/owner) email address, pretending to be them, is sending a message to the group something like this: > > We are closing this group. And This is final Warning. Because of spam > messages we are not able to remain your membership in this group. If > you wanted to keep the membership than you have to join the alternate > group. Click On The below link And join the group. If you wanted to > get some best stuff in your inbox instead of spam messages. Than > Please don't wait and click on the link below and join it. > > This group will Close and this is the last warning to all the group > members. So please click the link below and get the membership of this > group. Where all of your messages will approve. And you can sent and > receive the quality mails. > > Thanks Regards, > Owner Group > > So BEWARE if you EVER see any message like this in ANY Yahoo group that you are in, including this one. Do NOT click on the link they are sending, and DO NOT believe what it is telling you about the group. I hope this never happens in our group, but since it apparently has hit many other groups I just want everyone to be forewarned. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26904|26813|2011-11-08 21:02:09|brentswain38|Re: "black" from aluminum on skin or gear|With a submersible, you need a lot of weight to give you neutral buoyancy, over 3 inches thick for a 30 inch pipe. While ferro is low strength in tension, it is high in compression, which is what you need for a sub. The drug runners from South America have been building increasingly sophisticated ferro subs for their drug running. At first they were runing just below the surface, now they are becomming capable of considerable depths. Gives the coasties one less excuse for bothering us yachties. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > 7 to 10 inches thick? other than for maybe the keel with ballast in it that doesn't sound like ferro cement. A well done ferrocement hull will only be at most about an inch thick. With 7 to 10 layers of wire covered with cement.. It is an incredibly labor intensive building method. You will probably spend a year building the strong back and attaching the layer after layer of the wire mesh. There is actually a lot of steel in a ferrocement hull. > > I would price out the cost of the wire and rebar needed as well as all the wire needed to tie each layer to the next. You will also have to as soon as the hull is covered with cement need to cover it and steam it for a week or so. > > To get the hull properly covered in cement you will need a team of 5 or 6 people trowling it on to get it on fast enough that one part the boat cures before another part. All the people trowling need to be very experienced to do a good job. > > There are a lot of gotchas in building a quality ferrocement hull. and I wouldn't want to risk my life any any boat that didn't have quality involved its hulls construction. > > I have collin brooks book on building ferro cement boats in the shelf in front of me. You should try to get a copy before jumping in that project. You could learn to weld at a tech school course and build a steel boat for about the same cost I would bet and have it in the water in 1/4 the time. > scott carle > > > At 7" to 10" thick, one has to remember, there is a lot of inertia, and next to no elasticity and no plasticity. It is your own inertia that will cause hole,s not the rock leaping up from the bottom to strike you boat. > > > > I would sooner go for steel, > > > | 26905|26900|2011-11-09 12:31:13|William|Re: FW: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator|How silly... I have traveled all over the world with two laptops and numerous hard drives, cameras and never once have I been asked anything by any security other than where my destinations was and the reason for my travels. I carry 4 terabytes of drives and security has never even ask to see them on. I travel and re-enter the USA at least 6 times per year over the last 8 years by airplane and by boat. I have only been treated with professionalism and respect. I arrange my equipment in separate pouches and pull each out for inspection. They appreciate my organization efforts and my attempts to make their job easier. Because of what I carry I expect to be searched and about 50 percent of the time that is what happens. I was even on a no-fly list for a year because of someone with my same name did something bad. Oh that was fun! I had to wait every time while keyboards keys were punched and lots of phone calls were made. Even then I was not asked for any personal information. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I was geting similar messages threatening to close my yahoo acount, then asking for my password. When I asked yahoo about it, they said they never ask for you password except the one time you are signing up for a new account. > Friends have had their info stolen this way, and their address was subsequently used to send spam. > Uncle Sam has been demanding people's personal email passwords when crossing the border with a laptop. These they are free to sell on the black market later for their personal pocketmoney. > Simple solution; dont go into the US with a computer, or better still, stay out of the US, period. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: To-Your-Health@yahoogroups.com; GEM-Meditation@yahoogroups.com; OM-Letter@yahoogroups.com; Kombucha-Manna-International-News@yahoogroups.com; Whole-World-Watching@yahoogroups.com; original_kombucha@yahoogroups.com; Friends-Quotes@yahoogroups.com > > From: OM@ > > Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:03:29 -0400 > > Subject: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > Word is being spread in the Yahoo moderator group that there is some spoofing going around in several groups. A third party, using a member (or moderator/owner) email address, pretending to be them, is sending a message to the group something like this: > > > > We are closing this group. And This is final Warning. Because of spam > > messages we are not able to remain your membership in this group. If > > you wanted to keep the membership than you have to join the alternate > > group. Click On The below link And join the group. If you wanted to > > get some best stuff in your inbox instead of spam messages. Than > > Please don't wait and click on the link below and join it. > > > > This group will Close and this is the last warning to all the group > > members. So please click the link below and get the membership of this > > group. Where all of your messages will approve. And you can sent and > > receive the quality mails. > > > > Thanks Regards, > > Owner Group > > > > So BEWARE if you EVER see any message like this in ANY Yahoo group that you are in, including this one. Do NOT click on the link they are sending, and DO NOT believe what it is telling you about the group. I hope this never happens in our group, but since it apparently has hit many other groups I just want everyone to be forewarned. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 26906|26900|2011-11-10 07:30:11|Matt Malone|Re: FW: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator|While I have never been asked for passwords, every time I have crossed the border in the last 6-8 years, I have been pulled aside and questioned a lot and subjected to "extra" "random" security checks. After a while, they did not seem very random to me. Last time I crossed the border, by car, coincidentally to buy my boat, I anticipated extra something, so, I removed all items from my truck, everything, except an aluminum ladder in the cargo area (to climb up into and inspect my boat) and my suitcase. I was "randomly" selected for a full vehicle search. No saws were used, but it took two hours, I was not allowed to see what they were doing, and, coincidentally there was an officer with a gun trying hard to look like he was just hanging out, about 15 feet from me in a room the size of a basketball court with 6-8 benches, 3 "clients" and 15 officers ... that I could see. From my perspective, as a 5-generation Canadian, who has never visited any nasty countries, a professional, never in trouble with the law, these repeated "random" checks, while I watch hundreds of people go by, does seem excessive. Once, despite arriving at 5am, for a 9am flight from a small airport, security once held me so long that I missed my flight. Yes, I arrive at airports 4 hours in advance now. Coincidentally, crossing back across the border with a 41 foot used boat full of crap (literally and figuratively) the Canadian officials were not at all concerned about me, my truck or the boat. There was no search what so ever, not even a look around, which would have been more than fair, to make sure the boat was not filled with a few tons of drugs or guns or illegal aliens or something. I used to cross a lot in the years after 911, and at the start there was no problem, nothing more than randomly usual for everyone else. Perhaps I am on some list now, but that list seems to apply whether I cross by air or by land. If I am ever required to cross again, I will not bring anything I do not absolutely need, or fear losing. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: rowdy@... Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:31:01 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: FW: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator How silly... I have traveled all over the world with two laptops and numerous hard drives, cameras and never once have I been asked anything by any security other than where my destinations was and the reason for my travels. I carry 4 terabytes of drives and security has never even ask to see them on. I travel and re-enter the USA at least 6 times per year over the last 8 years by airplane and by boat. I have only been treated with professionalism and respect. I arrange my equipment in separate pouches and pull each out for inspection. They appreciate my organization efforts and my attempts to make their job easier. Because of what I carry I expect to be searched and about 50 percent of the time that is what happens. I was even on a no-fly list for a year because of someone with my same name did something bad. Oh that was fun! I had to wait every time while keyboards keys were punched and lots of phone calls were made. Even then I was not asked for any personal information. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I was geting similar messages threatening to close my yahoo acount, then asking for my password. When I asked yahoo about it, they said they never ask for you password except the one time you are signing up for a new account. > Friends have had their info stolen this way, and their address was subsequently used to send spam. > Uncle Sam has been demanding people's personal email passwords when crossing the border with a laptop. These they are free to sell on the black market later for their personal pocketmoney. > Simple solution; dont go into the US with a computer, or better still, stay out of the US, period. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: To-Your-Health@yahoogroups.com; GEM-Meditation@yahoogroups.com; OM-Letter@yahoogroups.com; Kombucha-Manna-International-News@yahoogroups.com; Whole-World-Watching@yahoogroups.com; original_kombucha@yahoogroups.com; Friends-Quotes@yahoogroups.com > > From: OM@ > > Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:03:29 -0400 > > Subject: [OK] Fake Post Apparently From Group Owner or Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > Word is being spread in the Yahoo moderator group that there is some spoofing going around in several groups. A third party, using a member (or moderator/owner) email address, pretending to be them, is sending a message to the group something like this: > > > > We are closing this group. And This is final Warning. Because of spam > > messages we are not able to remain your membership in this group. If > > you wanted to keep the membership than you have to join the alternate > > group. Click On The below link And join the group. If you wanted to > > get some best stuff in your inbox instead of spam messages. Than > > Please don't wait and click on the link below and join it. > > > > This group will Close and this is the last warning to all the group > > members. So please click the link below and get the membership of this > > group. Where all of your messages will approve. And you can sent and > > receive the quality mails. > > > > Thanks Regards, > > Owner Group > > > > So BEWARE if you EVER see any message like this in ANY Yahoo group that you are in, including this one. Do NOT click on the link they are sending, and DO NOT believe what it is telling you about the group. I hope this never happens in our group, but since it apparently has hit many other groups I just want everyone to be forewarned. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26907|26907|2011-11-11 07:40:46|GP|Electric Propulsion|I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary| 26908|26907|2011-11-11 09:08:04|Aaron|Re: Electric Propulsion|Gary Several of us have been looking at it but the best place is over at the electric boats group. The guy that owns Bianka is there alot sharing info about his progress along with many others. Aaron Aaron Williams Creative Cuts and Welding P.O. Box 8027 Nikiski, Alaska 99635 907-394-2940 ________________________________ From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:40 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion   I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26909|26907|2011-11-11 12:59:57|Matt Malone|Re: Electric Propulsion|One thing I am concerned about with electric is salt water. A diesel can be under water, or at least thoroughly drenched, and running is certainly not out of the question. The gasoline motor in my boat is near the bilge, but above the 30 gallon line in the bilge, probably 80-100 gallons before the water touches and that would throw up a spray and wet out the ignition. It has a nice drip-hatch to keep it from getting drenched in the in-coming water. Not optimal, but, with every change, I intend to make improvements. I am still mulling an electric conversion, or electric augmentation, as one of those things far down the list of priorities. The electric motor itself, if it is water-cooled can certainly be completely sealed, immune to drenching, and would probably work completely under water for a time too, longer if one could pressurize the case. What I am thinking about are the batteries. It has come up before that because of the size of the battery's case, they are not very dense as ballast, not as good as concrete even, which is not very good. However, they are still really heavy, far heavier than my gas engine, so you are not going to mount them up high. Chances are, the batteries are going to be down in the keel / bilge area. So, chances are, the first bucket of seawater that comes in, will come to rest down near your batteries somewhere. Not too many buckets later, and the batteries are awash and that would seem to be a problem for the batteries. Sealing the battery area water tight against standing water is not easy if you want it accessible at other times, to add electrolyte, balance charge, or balance discharge. If my batteries were lithium, I would just mount them about 1,000 gallons up from the bottom of the bilge, in an nice drench-proof drip-off case, and not worry about it ... any more than I would already worry about a lithium bomb on my boat... Ships have battery rooms and special vents, and special doors, and a whole lot of safety surrounding batteries. Wedging batteries into a small boat without those measures... A lot to consider. That is before thinking about seawater, a conductor, even a little splash of it, and likely voltages on your battery pack, and humans being around them. My boat is a really old one, and it seems from the design that everything is built expecting a few buckets of will water make it into the boat. A cup of salt water, and 60-100 Volts DC is really dangerous. Even 30-50 Volts is darn uncomfortable when you get a really good conductive contact, as I most recently reminded myself with my arc welder. It could have been worse. I could have been in a metal boat, with a couple of floor hatches off, spread-eagled across a couple of floor beams, intending to fiddle with a bilge pump inlet down by my batteries, when the boat lurched. I am having a hard time seeing "robust" and "safe" in large-scale electric installation with the inevitable salt water. I am considering keeping my electric it to small interchangeable thrusters, enough for docking. My house batteries, 24 volts, are mounted about 1,000 gallons above the bottom of the bilge, in a nice dry spot. If I need all the thrusters at full to make it from 100 yards out, to 100 yards inside the breakwater, and in the process put a serious dent in the charge on my house batteries, I do not see that as a big problem. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:08:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion Gary Several of us have been looking at it but the best place is over at the electric boats group. The guy that owns Bianka is there alot sharing info about his progress along with many others. Aaron Aaron Williams Creative Cuts and Welding P.O. Box 8027 Nikiski, Alaska 99635 907-394-2940 ________________________________ From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:40 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26910|26907|2011-11-11 14:31:48|Denis Buggy|Re: Electric Propulsion|MATT I ONCE LET A CAR BATTERY FALL INTO A FLOODED PIT --IT WAS FLAT --HOWEVER IT EXPLODED AND DRENCHED ME IN ACID. I RAN TO A HOSE AND CAME BACK IN AND LOOKED AT THE REMAINS --IT HAD BLOWN COMPLETELY BOTH SIDES OF THE PLASTIC CASING OFF . HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS ACID BEING DRIVEN BY AN EXPLOSION INTO EVERY CREVICE AND EVERYTHING ON YOUR BOAT -- YOU CANNOT TRANSMIT A REPAIR BY THE SAME MEANS AS THE ACCIDENT -- THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE THE ACCIDENT -- FORGET ABOUT LARGE BATTERY BANKS ON A BOAT . I HAVE WORKED WITH LARGE BATTERIES ALL MY LIFE AND THEY ARE VERY DANGEROUS -- YOU CAN HAVE A FAULTY CELL IN ONE BATTERY AND IT CAN GET YOU BY BOILING THE COMPANION BATTERY -- IT ALL LOOKS FINE THEN BANG -- I NOW RUB MY FINGER ALONG THE LENGTH OF EACH BATTERY AS I CAN QUICKLY TELL THEIR HEALTH BY TEMPERATURE -- THE GAS GIVEN OFF BY A AGING BATTERY WILL WRECK YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR BOAT BY STRIPPING A LAYER FROM ANYTHING IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH -- ACID IS CRUEL SHIT -- THERE ARE NO SPARE PARTS FOR YOUR LUNGS OR EYES -- KNOWING WHAT I KNOW I FIND TALK OF ELECTRICAL DRIVEN CARS OR BUSES OR BOATS THE HEIGHT OF BULLSHIT AS THE SMOKE STACKS OVER THE HILL PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY TO PLUG INTO YOUR GREEN/BLACK CAR ON THIS SIDE OF THE HILL AT A NUMBSKULL COST . ONLY ONE MAN GOT IT RIGHT -- IN 1929 NICOLA TESLA DROVE A BRAND NEW PIERCE ARROW CAR FOR A WEEK FOLLOWED BY JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS SOMETIMES AT 90MPH AND EACH DAY THEY PHOTOGRAPHED EACH INCH OF THE CAR AND LOOKED AT ITS 80 HP AC MOTOR DRIVEN BY A SHOE BOX WITH TWO WIRES LEADING FROM IT-- RESTING ON THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR -- WHEN THEY ACCUSED HIM OF WITCHCRAFT AFTER A WEEK OF LOOKING AT THE SHOE BOX HE TOOK HIS SHOE BOX AND DEPARTED LEAVING THE COMPLETE PIERCE ARROW CAR TO BE RETURNED TO THE PIERCE ARROW FACTORY TO HAVE AN RAD-ENGINE AND FUEL TANKS FITTED . NOBODY IS FUNDING THE MANY PEOPLE WHO TODAY CAN DOWNLOAD ELECTRICITY FROM THE AIR . WHEN YOU RESEARCH LIGHTNING YOU ARE INFORMED THAT AN AVERAGE TROPICAL THUNDERSTORM HAS THE POWER/ ENERGY OF A HIROSHIMA BOMB -- NO MOVING METAL PARTS -NO SWITCHES --NO CONTROLS NO STAFF. ONLY ONE MAN DARED TO FIGURE IT OUT AND BUILT A COIL KNOWN AS THE TESLA COIL AND MADE HIS LIGHTNING . MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE RADIO -X RAY - NEON - FLUORESCENT . AC ELECTRICITY .AC MOTOR AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER ESSENTIALS TO OUR LIFE TODAY . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > One thing I am concerned about with electric is salt water. A diesel can > be under water, or at least thoroughly drenched, and running is certainly > not out of the question. The gasoline motor in my boat is near the > bilge, but above the 30 gallon line in the bilge, probably 80-100 gallons > before the water touches and that would throw up a spray and wet out the > ignition. It has a nice drip-hatch to keep it from getting drenched in > the in-coming water. Not optimal, but, with every change, I intend to > make improvements. I am still mulling an electric conversion, or > electric augmentation, as one of those things far down the list of > priorities. > > The electric motor itself, if it is water-cooled can certainly be > completely sealed, immune to drenching, and would probably work completely > under water for a time too, longer if one could pressurize the case. What > I am thinking about are the batteries. It has come up before that > because of the size of the battery's case, they are not very dense as > ballast, not as good as concrete even, which is not very good. However, > they are still really heavy, far heavier than my gas engine, so you are > not going to mount them up high. Chances are, the batteries are going to > be down in the keel / bilge area. So, chances are, the first bucket of > seawater that comes in, will come to rest down near your batteries > somewhere. Not too many buckets later, and the batteries are awash and > that would seem to be a problem for the batteries. Sealing the battery > area water tight against standing water is not easy if you want it > accessible at other times, to add electrolyte, balance charge, or balance > discharge. > > If my batteries were lithium, I would just mount them about 1,000 gallons > up from the bottom of the bilge, in an nice drench-proof drip-off case, > and not worry about it ... any more than I would already worry about a > lithium bomb on my boat... Ships have battery rooms and special vents, > and special doors, and a whole lot of safety surrounding batteries. > Wedging batteries into a small boat without those measures... A lot to > consider. > > That is before thinking about seawater, a conductor, even a little splash > of it, and likely voltages on your battery pack, and humans being around > them. My boat is a really old one, and it seems from the design that > everything is built expecting a few buckets of will water make it into the > boat. A cup of salt water, and 60-100 Volts DC is really dangerous. > Even 30-50 Volts is darn uncomfortable when you get a really good > conductive contact, as I most recently reminded myself with my arc welder. > It could have been worse. I could have been in a metal boat, with a > couple of floor hatches off, spread-eagled across a couple of floor beams, > intending to fiddle with a bilge pump inlet down by my batteries, when the > boat lurched. > > I am having a hard time seeing "robust" and "safe" in large-scale electric > installation with the inevitable salt water. I am considering keeping my > electric it to small interchangeable thrusters, enough for docking. My > house batteries, 24 volts, are mounted about 1,000 gallons above the > bottom of the bilge, in a nice dry spot. If I need all the thrusters at > full to make it from 100 yards out, to 100 yards inside the breakwater, > and in the process put a serious dent in the charge on my house batteries, > I do not see that as a big problem. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: akenai@... > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:08:03 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > Several of us have been looking at it but the best place is over at the > electric boats group. The guy that owns Bianka is there alot sharing info > about his progress along with many others. > > Aaron > > > > Aaron Williams > > Creative Cuts and Welding > > P.O. Box 8027 > > Nikiski, Alaska 99635 > > 907-394-2940 > > > > ________________________________ > > From: GP > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:40 AM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed > a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having > replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there > are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British > Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 > about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary > > > > [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 > > > > | 26911|26907|2011-11-11 14:48:22|Matt Malone|Re: Electric Propulsion|Thank you Dennis, I had never dropped a battery into water. Even if it were not for the chlorine, I was thinking that the hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis of water would be an added fire/explosion hazard. As for electric cars / buses... at least the passenger compartment can be isolated from the batteries a lot better, and no one expects them to work in ocean waves... As for re-charging batteries from a coal / oil / natural gas plant, there are all sorts of arguments, however, the largest one I can see is, a vehicle engine, running on the same fuel is only 30% efficient, the rest is waste heat. Even if the plant is no more efficient, which it should be able to be, at least the waste heat from a plant can be piped away and heat buildings. It is called co-generation, and it works well. That 70% is a huge thing. One cannot hook a fuel car up to a long hose to capture and use the waste heat. I think the arguments over energy production cost of the car and batteries is a much smaller thing relative to the 70% heat waste. Now we just need a law that requires energy producers to participate in co-generation, and give away their waste heat for free to towns and cities. A lot of energy will be saved in building heating. Tesla, yes interesting guy. Do you have any links to what was in the shoebox ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: denis@... Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:31:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion MATT I ONCE LET A CAR BATTERY FALL INTO A FLOODED PIT --IT WAS FLAT --HOWEVER IT EXPLODED AND DRENCHED ME IN ACID. I RAN TO A HOSE AND CAME BACK IN AND LOOKED AT THE REMAINS --IT HAD BLOWN COMPLETELY BOTH SIDES OF THE PLASTIC CASING OFF . HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS ACID BEING DRIVEN BY AN EXPLOSION INTO EVERY CREVICE AND EVERYTHING ON YOUR BOAT -- YOU CANNOT TRANSMIT A REPAIR BY THE SAME MEANS AS THE ACCIDENT -- THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE THE ACCIDENT -- FORGET ABOUT LARGE BATTERY BANKS ON A BOAT . I HAVE WORKED WITH LARGE BATTERIES ALL MY LIFE AND THEY ARE VERY DANGEROUS -- YOU CAN HAVE A FAULTY CELL IN ONE BATTERY AND IT CAN GET YOU BY BOILING THE COMPANION BATTERY -- IT ALL LOOKS FINE THEN BANG -- I NOW RUB MY FINGER ALONG THE LENGTH OF EACH BATTERY AS I CAN QUICKLY TELL THEIR HEALTH BY TEMPERATURE -- THE GAS GIVEN OFF BY A AGING BATTERY WILL WRECK YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR BOAT BY STRIPPING A LAYER FROM ANYTHING IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH -- ACID IS CRUEL SHIT -- THERE ARE NO SPARE PARTS FOR YOUR LUNGS OR EYES -- KNOWING WHAT I KNOW I FIND TALK OF ELECTRICAL DRIVEN CARS OR BUSES OR BOATS THE HEIGHT OF BULLSHIT AS THE SMOKE STACKS OVER THE HILL PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY TO PLUG INTO YOUR GREEN/BLACK CAR ON THIS SIDE OF THE HILL AT A NUMBSKULL COST . ONLY ONE MAN GOT IT RIGHT -- IN 1929 NICOLA TESLA DROVE A BRAND NEW PIERCE ARROW CAR FOR A WEEK FOLLOWED BY JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS SOMETIMES AT 90MPH AND EACH DAY THEY PHOTOGRAPHED EACH INCH OF THE CAR AND LOOKED AT ITS 80 HP AC MOTOR DRIVEN BY A SHOE BOX WITH TWO WIRES LEADING FROM IT-- RESTING ON THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR -- WHEN THEY ACCUSED HIM OF WITCHCRAFT AFTER A WEEK OF LOOKING AT THE SHOE BOX HE TOOK HIS SHOE BOX AND DEPARTED LEAVING THE COMPLETE PIERCE ARROW CAR TO BE RETURNED TO THE PIERCE ARROW FACTORY TO HAVE AN RAD-ENGINE AND FUEL TANKS FITTED . NOBODY IS FUNDING THE MANY PEOPLE WHO TODAY CAN DOWNLOAD ELECTRICITY FROM THE AIR . WHEN YOU RESEARCH LIGHTNING YOU ARE INFORMED THAT AN AVERAGE TROPICAL THUNDERSTORM HAS THE POWER/ ENERGY OF A HIROSHIMA BOMB -- NO MOVING METAL PARTS -NO SWITCHES --NO CONTROLS NO STAFF. ONLY ONE MAN DARED TO FIGURE IT OUT AND BUILT A COIL KNOWN AS THE TESLA COIL AND MADE HIS LIGHTNING . MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE RADIO -X RAY - NEON - FLUORESCENT . AC ELECTRICITY .AC MOTOR AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER ESSENTIALS TO OUR LIFE TODAY . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > One thing I am concerned about with electric is salt water. A diesel can > be under water, or at least thoroughly drenched, and running is certainly > not out of the question. The gasoline motor in my boat is near the > bilge, but above the 30 gallon line in the bilge, probably 80-100 gallons > before the water touches and that would throw up a spray and wet out the > ignition. It has a nice drip-hatch to keep it from getting drenched in > the in-coming water. Not optimal, but, with every change, I intend to > make improvements. I am still mulling an electric conversion, or > electric augmentation, as one of those things far down the list of > priorities. > > The electric motor itself, if it is water-cooled can certainly be > completely sealed, immune to drenching, and would probably work completely > under water for a time too, longer if one could pressurize the case. What > I am thinking about are the batteries. It has come up before that > because of the size of the battery's case, they are not very dense as > ballast, not as good as concrete even, which is not very good. However, > they are still really heavy, far heavier than my gas engine, so you are > not going to mount them up high. Chances are, the batteries are going to > be down in the keel / bilge area. So, chances are, the first bucket of > seawater that comes in, will come to rest down near your batteries > somewhere. Not too many buckets later, and the batteries are awash and > that would seem to be a problem for the batteries. Sealing the battery > area water tight against standing water is not easy if you want it > accessible at other times, to add electrolyte, balance charge, or balance > discharge. > > If my batteries were lithium, I would just mount them about 1,000 gallons > up from the bottom of the bilge, in an nice drench-proof drip-off case, > and not worry about it ... any more than I would already worry about a > lithium bomb on my boat... Ships have battery rooms and special vents, > and special doors, and a whole lot of safety surrounding batteries. > Wedging batteries into a small boat without those measures... A lot to > consider. > > That is before thinking about seawater, a conductor, even a little splash > of it, and likely voltages on your battery pack, and humans being around > them. My boat is a really old one, and it seems from the design that > everything is built expecting a few buckets of will water make it into the > boat. A cup of salt water, and 60-100 Volts DC is really dangerous. > Even 30-50 Volts is darn uncomfortable when you get a really good > conductive contact, as I most recently reminded myself with my arc welder. > It could have been worse. I could have been in a metal boat, with a > couple of floor hatches off, spread-eagled across a couple of floor beams, > intending to fiddle with a bilge pump inlet down by my batteries, when the > boat lurched. > > I am having a hard time seeing "robust" and "safe" in large-scale electric > installation with the inevitable salt water. I am considering keeping my > electric it to small interchangeable thrusters, enough for docking. My > house batteries, 24 volts, are mounted about 1,000 gallons above the > bottom of the bilge, in a nice dry spot. If I need all the thrusters at > full to make it from 100 yards out, to 100 yards inside the breakwater, > and in the process put a serious dent in the charge on my house batteries, > I do not see that as a big problem. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: akenai@... > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:08:03 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > Several of us have been looking at it but the best place is over at the > electric boats group. The guy that owns Bianka is there alot sharing info > about his progress along with many others. > > Aaron > > > > Aaron Williams > > Creative Cuts and Welding > > P.O. Box 8027 > > Nikiski, Alaska 99635 > > 907-394-2940 > > > > ________________________________ > > From: GP > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:40 AM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed > a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having > replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there > are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British > Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 > about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary > > > > [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] | 26912|26907|2011-11-11 23:20:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD > AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE > WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for myself. :) First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to clean up. Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's another business plan down the drain... Pic of an Optima battery under water: http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for all I know. Searching Google for batteries "work under water" will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 26913|26907|2011-11-12 00:01:42|Matt Malone|Re: Electric Propulsion|Ben, I have to say I am surprised the currents you measure are so small. But you measured them, so there is it. I recall the lethal current in organs is only milliamps, so, relative to health problems, those currents are not all that small. Do you have a second meter to measure the voltage across the leads of your first meter when you are reading 150 K Ohms ? I think you will find the voltage is less than 14 Volts. The importance of this is, seawater is not a linear resistor, I would not expect current to rise linearly with voltage, for it to have a meaningful "resistance". I would expect far more current with a little more voltage. For instance, I cannot recall ever being able to feel the voltage of a 12 V battery. Even 9V batteries to the tongue to test them, never felt like electricity, they just tasted bad when they were fully charged. But my 36 Volt welder, is an entirely different story. Especially when I was straddling an I-beam still moist from the morning dew, and accidentally poked the new rod through my gauntlet while mounting it in the stinger. No one came, so no one knows if I screamed like a little girl. Small blessings. I am pretty sure measurements with seawater and a meter will be substantially different with a 48V (56V actual) battery bank. I have seen high current sparks with water, however, I will admit, I have not tried a 12V (14V actual) battery as you have. I took Denis' anecdote as the accurate reporting of an experiment because in other conditions, I have seen batteries do extreme things. Now as for circuits in aquariums, that is an old trick. Just make sure the water is reasonably pure, and its resistance is huge. Pure water is actually an excellent resistor. Distilled water is not needed, even reasonably good de-ionizers will make water virtually non-conductive. Wire Electrical Discharge Machining machines (used to slowly cut blocks of tool steel to make dies) use either diesel fuel, or de-ionized water as the dielectric -- insulating liquid -- between the part and the wire. So, yes, big difference between explosion and milliamps, but I am still not ready to accept that a multi-battery bank adding up to 50-100 Volts is safe with salt water. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:20:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD > AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE > WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for myself. :) First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to clean up. Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's another business plan down the drain... Pic of an Optima battery under water: http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for all I know. Searching Google for batteries "work under water" will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26914|26907|2011-11-12 00:17:59|Barney Treadway|Re: Electric Propulsion|But were you wearing your aluminum foil hat? That may have been the difference.... www.ecomshare.com Ben Okopnik wrote: >On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: >> >> HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO >> DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID >> FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . >> ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A >> SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD >> AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE >> AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES >> ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE >> WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY >> WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > >Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for >myself. :) > >First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up >on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my >fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... >nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing >that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to >clean up. > >Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining >my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one >terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps >(even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point >of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter >fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance >across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the >battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... >my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That >means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was >a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours >- a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > >Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to >play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, >and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda >cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my >"Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's >another business plan down the drain... > > >Pic of an Optima battery under water: >http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > >Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them >power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for >all I know. Searching Google for > >batteries "work under water" > >will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > >(Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little >damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would >eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 >back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of >water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > >Ben >-- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik | 26915|26907|2011-11-12 01:53:57|Keith green|Re: Electric Propulsion|Not all that surprised. They've been using massive banks of batteries in the bilges of submarines for probably a hundred years. Keith On 11/11/2011 8:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: >> HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO >> DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID >> FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . >> ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A >> SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD >> AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE >> AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES >> ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE >> WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY >> WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for > myself. :) > > First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up > on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my > fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... > nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing > that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to > clean up. > > Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining > my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one > terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps > (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point > of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter > fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance > across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the > battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... > my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That > means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was > a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours > - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > > Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to > play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, > and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda > cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my > "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's > another business plan down the drain... > > > Pic of an Optima battery under water: > http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > > Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them > power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for > all I know. Searching Google for > > batteries "work under water" > > will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > > (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little > damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would > eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 > back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of > water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > > Ben | 26916|26907|2011-11-12 03:12:37|tinboat2010|Re: Electric Propulsion and the moon .....|I've seen more than a few boats that were sunk and the batteries didn't explode. One boat we pulled out of the water, flushed the engine with diesel, drained it and ran clean oil through it using a fresh battery. The battery that was sunk with the boat was put on a charger and reinstalled in the boat, it worked fine. I've seen a car that was twenty feet underwater and its lights were still on. On two separate occasions, I've seen a car and a pickup that, in the process of launching boats, ended up completely underwater. Both were pulled out, oil changed, gas tanks drained, gas replaced and then they were started with the batteries that had been in the vehicle when they went under. (Fresh water and summer in Northern California, 90's and up everyday …. Just left the doors open and the insides dried out) I was on a diesel submarine, each "battery," one fore and one aft, had 126 cells. Each cell was (approximately, it's been a few years) about 16 inches on each side and about 5 feet tall. We didn't worry about the battery exploding. (or a cell exploding) There's been 4 U.S. submarines sunk and raised, none had there batteries explode. Fire was the thing that would make your hair stand on end …. And it happened to us twice ….. They were electrical fires and you don't use water on electrical fires, but we didn't use sea water to fight fires because it's possible to create "chlorine gas" if sea water reaches the batteries. I've seen one battery explode, I just happened to be at my friend Sam's place when a mutual friend, Joe, called and said that he had a broken radiator mount and that he wanted to come over and have Sam weld it together. Joe drove up, Sam hooked the ground to his bumper, (in those days bumpers were mounted to the frame) Joe opened the hood and pointed out the broken piece and when Sam struck the arc there was an explosion. The battery had been charging while Joe was driving over, when he opened the hood there was still enough hydrogen gas around the engine compartment and battery to explode and it blew the top of the battery off. No one got hurt, no acid on anyone …… Joe grabbed a garden hose and rinsed everything off …. Later we found a couple of places under the hood that had a little paint damage, but that was it. (Just plain luck that no one was hurt) Wasn't that Tesla an amazing guy …? There he was with all that power in a shoe box. He could have built the first electric airplane ….. and with that much "concentrated power," with a little "tweaking" he might have gotten to the moon. And just think of the money he could have made with his "shoe box power supplies," he wouldn't have had to abandon his "transmission tower and power plant" that he was building on Long Island. He could have built his "Apparatus for Aerial Transportation" that he had a patent on ….. But …. like many "geniuses" in this world, he decided that rather than make money with his brilliance and incredible inventions, rather than help people around the world that were suffering because of the "great depression and World War 2," and despite people like J. P. Morgan, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who refused to help him develop his "death Beam," that would end all wars, ….. he would just make a living as a consulting engineer. It's just totally amazing ……. Tinboat --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith green wrote: > > > Not all that surprised. They've been using massive banks of > batteries in the bilges of submarines for probably a hundred years. > > > > Keith > > On 11/11/2011 8:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > >> HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO > >> DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > >> FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > >> ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > >> SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD > >> AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > >> AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > >> ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE > >> WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > >> WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > > Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for > > myself. :) > > > > First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up > > on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my > > fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... > > nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing > > that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to > > clean up. > > > > Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining > > my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one > > terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps > > (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point > > of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter > > fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance > > across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the > > battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... > > my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That > > means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was > > a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours > > - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > > > > Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to > > play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, > > and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda > > cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my > > "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's > > another business plan down the drain... > > > > > > Pic of an Optima battery under water: > > http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > > > > Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them > > power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for > > all I know. Searching Google for > > > > batteries "work under water" > > > > will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > > > > (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little > > damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would > > eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 > > back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of > > water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > > > > > Ben > | 26917|26907|2011-11-12 06:55:43|Kim|Re: Electric Propulsion|Hi Gary ... Worldwide "Peak oil" happened about 2005. Since then, Worldwide oil production (from all sources, old and new) hasn't started to decrease (yet); but it has plateaued for the last 6 years. Despite ever-increasing demand, and ever-increasing oil prices, Worldwide oil production hasn't responded by increasing. There's many "doomsday"-scenario web sites out there based on this fact. Hopefully they're all wrong. The price of diesel has been increasing dramatically around here over recent years, and I suspect that trend will accelerate. Maybe the time is coming when only the extremely wealthy will be able to even consider installing an ICE in their boat, and the rest of us will have no option but to go electric. My Swain 26 will have an electric motor. Solar panel recharging of the batteries will (realistically) give me only about 4 hours motoring a week. I know that's going to be sometimes very inconvenient; but I'm at the bottom end of the 99%, and I don't think I have much choice. Of course, there are many, many, many other advantages of going electric, and I'm looking forward to it. Cheers ... Kim. _____________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary _____________________________________________ | 26918|26907|2011-11-12 08:15:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:01:40AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Ben, > > I have to say I am surprised the currents you measure are so small. But you measured them, so there is it. I recall the lethal current in organs is only milliamps, so, relative to health problems, those currents are not all that small. Matt, "only milliamps" is quite a lot - particularly when compared to 80 *micro*amps. The lethal range, according to the standard GE study that everyone's been citing all these years, begins at 100 milliamps - which is 1250 higher than the current that I measured. These currents are indeed "all that small". > Do you have a second meter to measure the voltage across the leads of your first meter when you are reading 150 K Ohms ? I think you will find the voltage is less than 14 Volts. [smile] That's a rather obvious "gimme". No normal meter is ever going to have 14v across its leads when measuring resistance. But it doesn't matter, since I measured the current across the seawater where the applied voltage *was* the full battery voltage, so I'm not sure what you're trying to establish. > The importance of this is, seawater is not a linear resistor, I would not expect current to rise linearly with voltage, for it to have a meaningful "resistance". Really??? Matt, that's a fascinating statement. I guess those scientists at Bell Labs (and nowadays at Intel and such) wasted their time with germanium, silicon, yittrium, gallium arsenide, and all that nonsense just so they could create a *NON-LINEAR* junction - a.k.a. a diode, and thus transistors, integrated circuits, and the whole gamut without which the modern world could not exist. If they had only known... Seawater is, for all purposes except the most microscopic variations, is a linear resistor. Absolutely so at these low voltages being discussed. > I would expect far more current with a little more voltage. Why not try it out as I did? I'm not trying to be insulting, but you seem to have acquired a large set of fears and misconceptions about electricity, especially at low voltages, that differ greatly from reality. I understand that the *emotional* load of looking at a set of big, heavy things that can smash the hell out of your foot, and can produce BIG sparks and lots of noise when shorted can be highly intimidating... but really, 12V batteries are thousands of times less dangerous than a tankful of gasoline, and I'm sure that you fill up your car without the slightest trepidation. > For instance, I cannot recall ever being able to feel the voltage of a 12 V battery. Surprisingly enough, I have. Wet hands, and sitting with my feet in the water - the battery positive had become shorted to the (floating) boat ground, and holding onto the backstay on that boat gave me a little buzz that I thought was imaginary until I found that I could repeatedly feel it. Unusual situation. > Even 9V batteries to the tongue to test them, never felt like electricity, they just tasted bad when they were fully charged. But my 36 Volt welder, is an entirely different story. Especially when I was straddling an I-beam still moist from the morning dew, and accidentally poked the new rod through my gauntlet while mounting it in the stinger. No one came, so no one knows if I screamed like a little girl. Small blessings. Sure - but this is about how you perceive, via your nervous system and your brain's interpretation of the signals sent via that system - the voltage, not about non-linearity in that voltage. This says nothing about its lethality. 9V "tastes bad" to you; it's quite a healthy zap for me (makes tears come to my eyes.) Other people can barely feel it at all. When I was going to a vocational school and studying electronics back in the 70s, one of my friends in the course was a guy who simply couldn't feel 120VAC with his hands - very thick skin - but he also couldn't wear (then fashionable) LED watches: his body literally scrambled their displays the second they were brought near his skin. It was fascinating to see. > I am pretty sure measurements with seawater and a meter will be substantially different with a 48V (56V actual) battery bank. I strongly doubt it. Water has no nerves. :) > I have seen high current sparks with water, however, I will admit, I have not tried a 12V (14V actual) battery as you have. I took Denis' anecdote as the accurate reporting of an experiment because in other conditions, I have seen batteries do extreme things. As I said, why not try it? It's not complicated. > Now as for circuits in aquariums, that is an old trick. Just make sure the water is reasonably pure, and its resistance is huge. Pure water is actually an excellent resistor. Distilled water is not needed, even reasonably good de-ionizers will make water virtually non-conductive. Wire Electrical Discharge Machining machines (used to slowly cut blocks of tool steel to make dies) use either diesel fuel, or de-ionized water as the dielectric -- insulating liquid -- between the part and the wire. The ones I used at Hughes Aircraft just used an air gap. I _loved_ those things, both the wire type and the pin machine; you could carve solid chunks of metal as though it were ice on a hot wire. > So, yes, big difference between explosion and milliamps, but I am still not ready to accept that a multi-battery bank adding up to 50-100 Volts is safe with salt water. 48V is pretty much guaranteed non-lethal (I seem to recall a case, from many years ago, where someone did manage to get electrocuted with a 12V car battery, but the circumstances were something bizarrely extreme.) 100V, I'll grant you, isn't something I'm likely to treat in a blasé fashion... but then, I don't go lighting matches around gasoline, or shoving my fingers into a running lathe, either. Any machinery that we humans use is, in the final result, an amplifier of human effort. As an amplifier, it's all going to have high-leverage parts of some sort - and treating those carelessly is always going to result in problems. The only question is, can a mechanism be made safe enough for us humans to use with a reasonable amount of caution? With electricity - even electricity well over 100V - the answer is an absolute, unqualified "YES". Hundreds of millions of people use it daily in their homes and at their jobs; there are few other "mechanisms" on the face of this earth that have been as well tested against human error as electricity at that voltage. 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| 26919|26907|2011-11-12 08:16:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:13:10PM -0700, Barney Treadway wrote: > But were you wearing your aluminum foil hat? That may have been the difference.... Darn it, Barney! You caught me out... I maliciously omitted the most important part of the test requirements, and was hoping that no one would notice. Curses! Foiled again! :))) 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| 26920|26907|2011-11-12 08:17:15|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|The batteries, whether for propulsion or the normal 12 volt items on board, should be in acid proof boxes, which are waterproof from the outside as well of course. They should have lids which are designed in such a way that any water on top doesn't run into the box. Location is important, not at the lowest part of the bilge but reasonably low and ideally near the center of the boat for weight distribution. They should be strapped down as well. The problem isn't so much shorting the batteries with water but the mixing of the salt water and the battery acid, which causes an immediate chemical explosion as well as chlorine gas. Many boats have battery banks of 800AH, 1000AH or more and these boats do not have electric propulsion. With a proper installation they can be safe and secure. The last issue of Professional Boatbuilder (#133 October/November 2011) has an excellent article by Steve D'Antonio on large battery banks and how to install them safely if anyone subscribes. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ben, > > I have to say I am surprised the currents you measure are so small. But you measured them, so there is it. I recall the lethal current in organs is only milliamps, so, relative to health problems, those currents are not all that small. > > Do you have a second meter to measure the voltage across the leads of your first meter when you are reading 150 K Ohms ? I think you will find the voltage is less than 14 Volts. The importance of this is, seawater is not a linear resistor, I would not expect current to rise linearly with voltage, for it to have a meaningful "resistance". I would expect far more current with a little more voltage. For instance, I cannot recall ever being able to feel the voltage of a 12 V battery. Even 9V batteries to the tongue to test them, never felt like electricity, they just tasted bad when they were fully charged. But my 36 Volt welder, is an entirely different story. Especially when I was straddling an I-beam still moist from the morning dew, and accidentally poked the new rod through my gauntlet while mounting it in the stinger. No one came, so no one knows if I screamed like a little girl. Small blessings. > > I am pretty sure measurements with seawater and a meter will be substantially different with a 48V (56V actual) battery bank. I have seen high current sparks with water, however, I will admit, I have not tried a 12V (14V actual) battery as you have. I took Denis' anecdote as the accurate reporting of an experiment because in other conditions, I have seen batteries do extreme things. > > Now as for circuits in aquariums, that is an old trick. Just make sure the water is reasonably pure, and its resistance is huge. Pure water is actually an excellent resistor. Distilled water is not needed, even reasonably good de-ionizers will make water virtually non-conductive. Wire Electrical Discharge Machining machines (used to slowly cut blocks of tool steel to make dies) use either diesel fuel, or de-ionized water as the dielectric -- insulating liquid -- between the part and the wire. > > So, yes, big difference between explosion and milliamps, but I am still not ready to accept that a multi-battery bank adding up to 50-100 Volts is safe with salt water. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:20:42 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > > > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO > > > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > > > FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > > > ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > > > SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD > > > AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > > > YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > > > AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > > > ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE > > > WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > > > WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > > > > Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for > > myself. :) > > > > First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up > > on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my > > fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... > > nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing > > that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to > > clean up. > > > > Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining > > my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one > > terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps > > (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point > > of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter > > fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance > > across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the > > battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... > > my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That > > means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was > > a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours > > - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > > > > Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to > > play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, > > and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda > > cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my > > "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's > > another business plan down the drain... > > > > Pic of an Optima battery under water: > > http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > > > > Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them > > power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for > > all I know. Searching Google for > > > > batteries "work under water" > > > > will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > > > > (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little > > damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would > > eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 > > back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of > > water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > > > Ben > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26921|26907|2011-11-12 09:06:35|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion and the moon .....|On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:12:34AM -0000, tinboat2010 wrote: > > Wasn't that Tesla an amazing guy ? He's much more amazing today than he ever actually was. That's what happens when a cult gets hold of a story like his. Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees. -- Terry Pratchett In the old days, some people used to see - I mean, *really* see, like hundreds of people at the same time - angels and devils and gods and dragons. Recorded by reliable reporters, even. Nowadays, that fanaticism and mass psychosis finds other outlets... but it's still about either worshipping or fearing and hating things that lie beyond their understanding. The underlying belief hasn't changed at all - the ignorant and the fearful have just found a different set of angels and devils. Tesla really was a great engineer; no doubt about it. Made some amazing discoveries, including a number of things that were never understood by other people (which is why I hesitate to call him a great _scientist;_ one of the hallmarks of a scientist is the desire to increase the sum total of knowledge in the world, and thus the desire to accurately report and share the results of their experiments. From that perspective, the man was... less than admirable.) So... humanitarian, not so much. Sane, barely (the most meaningful love affair of his life was with a pigeon.) Mediagenic, extremely. Just what the doctor ordered if you want to be fanatical about somebody. So, we have the ignorant worshipping the crazy... ho-hum, business as usual. One day, the human race will grow up (if we don't kill ourselves off sometime soon) - but that day is not yet. > There he was with all that power in a shoe box. He could have built > the first electric airplane .. and with that much "concentrated > power," with a little "tweaking" he might have gotten to the moon. > And just think of the money he could have made with his "shoe box > power supplies," he wouldn't have had to abandon his "transmission > tower and power plant" that he was building on Long Island. He could > have built his "Apparatus for Aerial Transportation" that he had a > patent on .. But . like many "geniuses" in this world, he decided that > rather than make money with his brilliance and incredible inventions, > rather than help people around the world that were suffering because > of the "great depression and World War 2," and despite people like J. > P. Morgan, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who refused to help > him develop his "death Beam," that would end all wars, .. he would > just make a living as a consulting engineer. It's just totally > amazing . Seems like just shorting the contacts on that "shoebox" would have been enough of a "death beam" for anybody... (What I'm curious about is, how did this "shoebox" push the car? Source of power, OK, let's even grant that - but where was the motor??? That shoebox that Tesla just "walked away with" must have had some telekinetic magic built into it that grabbed and turned the axles or something...) 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| 26922|26907|2011-11-12 09:14:57|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:24:36AM -0000, Brian Stannard wrote: > > The problem isn't so much shorting the batteries with water but the > mixing of the salt water and the battery acid, which causes an > immediate chemical explosion as well as chlorine gas. Oh... dear. More misinformation, I'm afraid. I don't have any FLAs on board these days, so I can't tap off a bit of battery acid to mix with seawater - but please, take my word for it. There would not be any explosion, or even any visible reaction. Trust me on this one: I'm the guy who spent quite a bit of time being fascinated by visible (well, OK, *violent*) chemical reactions when I was about 16, and tried lots and lots of things to that end. Since there was nothing like Mentos and Coke around at that time, I found it quite a challenge... although I seem to recall lab-grade iodine and ammonia being quite fun once you let the liquid evaporate. :) Battery acid, no. Far too weak - and dissolving it with what is essentially slightly dirty water will have no effect whatsoever. 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| 26923|26907|2011-11-12 17:00:44|Denis Buggy|Re: Electric Propulsion|BEN I WOULD NOT NORMALLY REPLY AND KEEP THIS THREAD GOING JUST FOR AN ARGUMENT -- HOWEVER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEATH OF SOME ONE OR MORE THAN ONE IF YOU MIX SEAWATER AND A LEAD ACID BATTERY -- THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT SOMETHING TRIVIAL -- A SMALL AMOUNT OF CHLORINE GAS WILL KILL YOU AND IF YOU EVER READ ABOUT THE FIRST WORLD WAR YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THE HORRORS OF CHLORINE GAS CAN DO -- IF YOU SURVIVE IN THE 1800S 52% OF THE BRITISH ARMY WERE IRISH . OVER 100,000 SERVED IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR AND THEY WERE NOT USED AS WINE WAITERS. WHEN I SAID BATTERIES WERE CRUEL I WAS REFERRING TO A LOCAL LAD WHO WORE PLASTIC GLASSES AND TOOK CARE AS HE WAS TOLD AND WHEN THE BATTERY BLEW IT BLEW THE GLASSES OFF HIS FACE AND SENT ACID UP HIS NOSE -- HE LOST HIS SIGHT AND IT DID SOMETHING TO HIS SINUS WHICH IS NOT REPAIRABLE -- THERE ARE ALSO OTHER COMPLICATIONS . YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT HAD YOU ASKED WHAT I MEANT HOWEVER YOU WERE IN SUCH A MAD RUSH TO RIDICULE . WE TAKE BATTERY LEADS OFF " BLIND" == YOU TURN YOUR HEAD AWAY AND LOWER IT AND IF SHE BLOWS YOUR BACK GETS IT -- WHICH IS MANAGEABLE WITH LOTS OF WATER -- HOWEVER YOUR CLOTHES TURN TO WHAT A GAS FILAMENT IS MADE OF . I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE BATTERY I DROPPED IN WATER EXPLODED AS WE HAVE FREQUENTLY WASHED BATTERIES WITH A POWERWASHER WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM AND BATTERIES WILL NOT EXPLODE WHEN EXPOSED TO RAIN -- HOWEVER ONE DID EXPLODE WHEN IT FELL INTO WATER -- YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO ACCEPT I AM TELLING THE TRUTH . ALL THE ADVICE YOU NEED IS ON WWW. BATTERYFAQ.ORG HOWEVER WE CONTINUE TO WORK "BLIND". DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Electric Propulsion On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:24:36AM -0000, Brian Stannard wrote: > > The problem isn't so much shorting the batteries with water but the > mixing of the salt water and the battery acid, which causes an > immediate chemical explosion as well as chlorine gas. Oh... dear. More misinformation, I'm afraid. I don't have any FLAs on board these days, so I can't tap off a bit of battery acid to mix with seawater - but please, take my word for it. There would not be any explosion, or even any visible reaction. Trust me on this one: I'm the guy who spent quite a bit of time being fascinated by visible (well, OK, *violent*) chemical reactions when I was about 16, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26924|26907|2011-11-12 17:24:40|brentswain38|Re: Electric Propulsion|Electrtric could work well in the West Indies or Vanuatu where the wind blows strong almost full time. In BC where you may well get a month or more without a breath of wind , and no sun, it would be impractical. You wouldnt get anywhere near the oomph you'd get out of a 3 cylindre diesel. A freind in Scotty bay gave up on the electric outboard on his 20 footer as it dies rather quickly under load. Not worth the trounble . He uses an oar now. A year and a half a go I submerged my starting battery in sea water. I've used it ever since and am just replacing it now. It was not a sealed battery, but had caps. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary > | 26925|26860|2011-11-12 17:27:10|brentswain38|Re: ETCH PRIMER|When I put etch primer on clean steel, the steel turned to bright red rust in a couple of hours. By overnite, it was covered in thick rust. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I have used etching primers and the big thing is to read and follow the instructions. The primer I use needs at least 24 hours to off-gas. The primer is dry to touch in one hour. but the acid needs at least 24 hours to leave the primer for top coating. > James > > --- On Sat, 10/29/11, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > From: Denis Buggy > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, October 29, 2011, 5:16 PM > > > >   > > > > > - > DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . > THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . > HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . > ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . > HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND > DENIS BUGGY > > Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. > A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. > > . > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26926|26907|2011-11-12 17:43:40|Denis Buggy|Re: Electric Propulsion|> > Tesla, yes interesting guy. Do you have any links to what was in the > shoebox ? > > Matt MATT THE BEST I HAVE IS FROM PAGE 89 OF THE TESLA PAPERS by David Hatcher Childress AN ARTICLE FROM THE PACKARD CO -- it reads as follows ---- in 1931 under the financing of Pierce Arrow and George Westinghouse a 1931 pierce arrow was selected to be tested at the factory grounds in Buffalo NY the standard combustion engine was removed and an 80hp 1800 rpm electric motor was installed . the ac motor measured 40 inches long and 30 in diameter and the power leads were left standing in the air -- NO POWER SOURCE . at the appointed time Mr. Tesla arrived carried out an inspection of the car -- he then went to local radio store and purchased a handful of tubes ( 12) and assorted resistors - a box measuring 24 inches long and 12 inches wide and 6 inches high was assembled housing the circuit . the box was placed on the front seat and had its wires connected to the air cooled brushless motor . two rods one quarter inch diam stuck out of the box about 3 inches in length -- Mr. Tesla got in to the car pushed the two rods in and said -- we now have power and it moved forward -- it then proceeded to perform better than any other vehicle of its day doing up to 90 mph in tests . a week was spent testing the vehicle . the newspapers in Buffalo reported the tests . Matt hope this helps regards Denis| 26927|26907|2011-11-12 17:44:00|Mark Hamill|Re: Electric Propulsion|Further to Brents comment on the lack of wind in summer in Georgia Straight kepttrack of the amount of sailing and motoring I did one summer when I was out all summer and I motored at least 85% of the time--a gorgeous hot summer but no wind. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 2:24 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Electric Propulsion Electrtric could work well in the West Indies or Vanuatu where the wind blows strong almost full time. In BC where you may well get a month or more without a breath of wind , and no sun, it would be impractical. You wouldnt get anywhere near the oomph you'd get out of a 3 cylindre diesel. A freind in Scotty bay gave up on the electric outboard on his 20 footer as it dies rather quickly under load. Not worth the trounble . He uses an oar now. A year and a half a go I submerged my starting battery in sea water. I've used it ever since and am just replacing it now. It was not a sealed battery, but had caps. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise British Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26928|26907|2011-11-12 17:46:15|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:00:44PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > BEN I WOULD NOT NORMALLY REPLY AND KEEP THIS THREAD GOING JUST FOR AN > ARGUMENT -- > HOWEVER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEATH OF SOME ONE OR MORE THAN ONE > IF YOU MIX SEAWATER AND A LEAD ACID BATTERY -- No, Denis; we're not talking about anything of the sort. You insist on a fantasy in which batteries explode when "mixed" with seawater; I don't believe that fantasy, and have gone to the length of actually making the motions of testing it (it's not a real test if the conclusion is a foregone one.) We can't even get to the part where "we're talking" about death, etc.; you may run on ahead to that point, but I'm not going there with you. :) > THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT SOMETHING TRIVIAL -- Not trivial to you. For most of the rest of the world, in order to take something seriously, you'd have to provide proof - and special pleading (please do look up that term) involving the Irish, chlorine gas, WWI, local lads with destroyed noses, and every other irrelevant item you've come up with does not constitute proof. > WHEN I SAID BATTERIES WERE CRUEL Oh, dear. Batteries now have human emotions, will, and intent. Nest thing you know, they'll be hiding under your bed. *Waiting*. > YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT HAD YOU ASKED WHAT I MEANT HOWEVER YOU WERE > IN SUCH A MAD RUSH TO RIDICULE . Exposing a ridiculous statement for what it is is not ridicule. Please consult a dictionary. If I wanted to ridicule you, that would be easy enough - but I I have no reason to do so, and have not done so. > WE TAKE BATTERY LEADS OFF " BLIND" == YOU TURN YOUR HEAD AWAY AND > LOWER IT AND IF SHE BLOWS YOUR BACK GETS IT -- WHICH IS MANAGEABLE > WITH LOTS OF WATER -- HOWEVER YOUR CLOTHES TURN TO WHAT A GAS FILAMENT > IS MADE OF . You know, I've spent the last 19 years living aboard, and have been working with batteries that entire time (and had a fair bit of experience with them before that: in the military, while working in the motor pool; afterwards, when racing cars and tweaking the engines in between times.) As a necessary adjunct of living aboard, I've been equalizing batteries, oh, at least six times a year on the average during that entire stretch. I've also connected and disconnected batteries on my boat and many others. I've never considered it necessary to do what you've described. In addition, I've spilled battery acid on myself a couple of times - mostly being a bit sloppy while topping up the cells - and, yeah, if you leave it on your jeans for three or four days, it'll make a light-colored spot and the material will start getting perceptibly thinner (doesn't happen if you wash it off, though.) As to your clothes "turning to what gas filament is made of" - that's as much a fantasy as the rest of it. Doesn't seem to affect synthetics at all, by the way. Perhaps your batteries come from Krypton (the planet where Superman was supposed to be born)? They certainly seem to be thousands of times more powerful as well as highly malicious. Here on Earth, batteries aren't like that. > I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE BATTERY I DROPPED IN WATER EXPLODED AS WE HAVE > FREQUENTLY WASHED BATTERIES WITH A POWERWASHER WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM > AND BATTERIES WILL NOT EXPLODE WHEN EXPOSED TO RAIN -- HOWEVER ONE > DID EXPLODE WHEN IT FELL INTO WATER -- YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO ACCEPT I AM > TELLING THE TRUTH . No, I don't have to accept it at all. If someone told me that a brick exploded when they dropped it into sand, I wouldn't have to accept that either - unless they, or you, supplied extraordinary proof. Please note that key word, "extraordinary": you're making an extraordinary claim, therefore, simple proof is insufficient. I would believe that a battery _shattered_ when you dropped it, splashing acid in all directions - nothing unusual there. Exploded, though? I'll wait for the video and affidavits from several reliable witnesses. 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| 26929|26860|2011-11-12 20:47:32|James Pronk|Re: ETCH PRIMER|Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was painting hot dip galvanized steel James --- On Sat, 11/12/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, November 12, 2011, 5:27 PM   When I put etch primer on clean steel, the steel turned to bright red rust in a couple of hours. By overnite, it was covered in thick rust. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I have used etching primers and the big thing is to read and follow the instructions. The primer I use needs at least 24 hours to off-gas. The primer is dry to touch in one hour. but the acid needs at least 24 hours to leave the primer for top coating. > James > > --- On Sat, 10/29/11, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > From: Denis Buggy > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, October 29, 2011, 5:16 PM > > > >   > > > > > - > DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . > THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . > HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . > ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . > HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND > DENIS BUGGY > > Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. > A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. > > . > > [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] | 26930|26930|2011-11-13 05:52:36|Denis Buggy|Fw: [origamiboats] Re: Electric Propulsion|----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Electric Propulsion On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:24:36AM -0000, Brian Stannard wrote: > > The problem isn't so much shorting the batteries with water but the > mixing of the salt water and the battery acid, which causes an > immediate chemical explosion as well as chlorine gas. Oh... dear. More misinformation, I'm afraid. BEN AND ALL BRIAN STANNARD SAID IN ONE PARAGRAPH WHAT HAD TO BE SAID - - THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT SOMEBODY MAY ACTUALLY TAKE BEN SERIOUSLY - - NO MATTER WHAT I SAY IT WILL ONLY APPEAR I WISH TO HAVE A ARGUMENT ABOUT IT SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, DENIS BUGGY [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26931|26907|2011-11-13 07:11:46|Bruno Ogorelec|Re: Electric Propulsion and the moon .....|Ben, Tesla was my compatriot. His birthplace is about a hundred miles from where I live. I am strongly impressed by his achievements and almost as strongly impressed by his failures. Truly an amazing guy. And I absolutely agree with what you wrote about him and about the attention he has recently been receiving. :) Bruno Ogorelec On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:12:34AM -0000, tinboat2010 wrote: > > > > Wasn't that Tesla an amazing guy ? > > He's much more amazing today than he ever actually was. That's what > happens when a cult gets hold of a story like his. > > Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its > tendency to bend at the knees. > -- Terry Pratchett > > In the old days, some people used to see - I mean, *really* see, like > hundreds of people at the same time - angels and devils and gods and > dragons. Recorded by reliable reporters, even. Nowadays, that fanaticism > and mass psychosis finds other outlets... but it's still about either > worshipping or fearing and hating things that lie beyond their > understanding. The underlying belief hasn't changed at all - the > ignorant and the fearful have just found a different set of angels and > devils. > > Tesla really was a great engineer; no doubt about it. Made some amazing > discoveries, including a number of things that were never understood by > other people (which is why I hesitate to call him a great _scientist;_ > one of the hallmarks of a scientist is the desire to increase the sum > total of knowledge in the world, and thus the desire to accurately > report and share the results of their experiments. From that > perspective, the man was... less than admirable.) > > So... humanitarian, not so much. Sane, barely (the most meaningful love > affair of his life was with a pigeon.) Mediagenic, extremely. Just what > the doctor ordered if you want to be fanatical about somebody. So, we > have the ignorant worshipping the crazy... ho-hum, business as usual. > One day, the human race will grow up (if we don't kill ourselves off > sometime soon) - but that day is not yet. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26932|26907|2011-11-13 09:07:17|scott|Re: Electric Propulsion|Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. I have seen batteries still running electrical systems after being submerged. Most of the electronics shorted but simple stuff like lights etc.. were still working minutes after being submerged. At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to worried about that either. Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning me. Scott ps.. I do know that any battery is at risk from exploding from improper charging etc. and when jumping a car off you stand away from the battery just in case. However it isn't something that happens often even when people do mess up and put the cables on backward. It's a low probability event that we take modest precautions against. I have spilled acid on my boat.. Just keep dumping backing soda in it till it quits hissing and then sop it up. Scrub with more backing soda, sop it up. Take strong solution of backing soda and water and drench whole area again. Now clean up the baking soda. You can buy a gallon of arm and hammer backing soda for about 7 bucks in a tough plastic bag/case and just store it on the boat somewhere. It's also useful for odor control and cooking :) > > > MATT > > I ONCE LET A CAR BATTERY FALL INTO A FLOODED PIT --IT WAS FLAT --HOWEVER IT > > EXPLODED AND DRENCHED ME IN ACID. > > I RAN TO A HOSE AND CAME BACK IN AND LOOKED AT THE REMAINS --IT HAD BLOWN > > COMPLETELY BOTH SIDES OF THE PLASTIC CASING OFF . > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO > > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > | 26933|26907|2011-11-13 11:20:29|sitefix|Re: Electric Propulsion|batteries, salt water, flooding, immersion, makes me think of a couple submarine movies. (and "DUNE" the way i started) Das Boat and the one about the code machine or something. seems there was a lot of water, big batteries etc. Ok, wartime situations are a bit different and "holleewood" (1947) is not the best reference. I had a large truck battery explode on me (literally in my face) way back in the '70s. I was helping to jump a big truck. I am glad I had sun glasses on. It blew the corner off the battery, about 3-5 inches of it. Luckily there was snow on the ground and I was able to "wash" my face quickly. Not all batteries behave as they should all the time. Lesson learned, do what you feel is safe from your experience, wise learned people and trust no one else when it comes to your own life and limb. "Good judgment comes from bad decisions??" Best to learn from other fails when possible. KISS KISS KISS Kay Eye S S I had a rental air-compressor going last summer. It had a Isuzu 50 HP diesel that sounded and looked great. Ran like a real champ. How hard would it be to "marinize" this unit?????? If I come across a used one at a "Steal", is it worth the effort to find a tranny and convert this engine?? Mac| 26934|26895|2011-11-13 15:06:18|badpirate36|Re: ALU BS36|Erkan(builder), estimated 12,500lbs (bare hull) which was later confirmed when launched. The fuel and water tanks are now full or almost full and the boat is still four inches shy of her lines. After asking a few other bs36 owners, I believe the mast rigging and interior should come out to approx 3000lbs or 3 inches. leaving an inch for hoarding, after all I plan on retiring on-board /.o) Sounds like a great party Haidan! 34 people 3500lbs... hmmmm, I did the math, that's haidan and 33 bikinni babes, hahaha I'll definetly be raft'in up for the next party. It's been a year since you posted some pic's, how's your interior comming along? I'm just starting on my interior and would sure appreciate some more pic's. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "haidan" wrote: > > Also, thankfully due to the rails not a single person fell in the water all night. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "haidan" wrote: > > > > I had a party on my boat this summer in caddy bay. I counted them, I had 34 people on board at one time, boat sunk about three or four inches in the water, though it was a little hard to measure as people kept moving around from side to side, a bit like herding cats, but I figure that'll be the most loaded it'll ever be. Didn't go around asking everyones weight but I figure it was somewhere between 3500 and 4500 lbs > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Total weight of any boat in full time use is dependent on the owner and how much of a pack rat he is. I gave Ercan the option of changing the centreline so she would float on her lines empty, or the original centreline, which would allow for several thousand pounds of personal effects. He wisely chose the later, having already done one cirucumnavigation. > > > The boat is around 14,000lbs empty with 4500 lbs of ballast, much heavier once in use for a while. > > > I just saw Winston's old 36 Dove 2 emptied out. She rose 6 inches in the water at 1150 lbs per inch immersion. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > > > > > I have seen pictures of the badpirate in aluminum in construction.  > > > > Are those longitudinal in the original design? Seem to rigid to bend together with the plate. > > > > Which total weight has this boat and the weight of the ballast, please. > > > > mauro > > > > > > > > Mauro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: badpirate36 > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 9:31 PM > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Water capacity on a blue water boat.? > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > > > > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > | 26935|26907|2011-11-13 16:15:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick plastic.) How do you make lead explode? [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > worried about that either. I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > me. Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the future. ;) 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| 26936|26930|2011-11-13 16:20:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: Fw: [origamiboats] Re: Electric Propulsion|On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:52:41AM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > - THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT SOMEBODY MAY ACTUALLY TAKE BEN SERIOUSLY - > > - NO MATTER WHAT I SAY IT WILL ONLY APPEAR I WISH TO HAVE A ARGUMENT ABOUT IT > > SOMEBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, DENIS BUGGY You're *SO* right, Denis! Here it is - the record-straightener. http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 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| 26937|26907|2011-11-13 16:26:57|wild_explorer|Re: Electric Propulsion|I think that when asked about electrical propulsion, most of the people thinking/talking about car lead-acid batteries because it is most common (and cheap) batteries. Electric Forklift battery pack was suggested as better alternative to car battery here. This group had a very good discussion (not so long ago) about batteries and electric propulsion for a boat. Including safety precautions need to be taken. Chlorine and Hydrogen could be a big problem if batteries compartment is not designed with the safety in mind. I am still thinking about Nickel-Iron (NiFe) batteries. Original design had metal case. Now most have plastic case. I would prefer metal one. They come as "one-cell" module (tall case). Main drawback for me about batteries is charge-discharge usable life of the batteries (about 1000 deep cycles for almost any battery type). Personally, I would not question "unusual" cases of "battery danger". Sometimes it just happens. You can generate Hydrogen, Oxygen and Chlorine from sea water with 2-3V DC and 2 close-placed electrodes, no problem at all with 12V DC ;)| 26938|26860|2011-11-13 17:33:24|brentswain38|Re: ETCH PRIMER|I used all hot dipped galvanized plate for my decks ,cabin, wheelhouse and cockpit. I washed it, first with TSP, then vinegar, then water, and the epoxy stuck to it for the last 27 years , like shit to a blanket. It's probably cheaper than any etch pirimer, and quicker too. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was painting hot dip galvanized steel > James > > --- On Sat, 11/12/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, November 12, 2011, 5:27 PM > > > >   > > > > When I put etch primer on clean steel, the steel turned to bright red rust in a couple of hours. By overnite, it was covered in thick rust. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > > I have used etching primers and the big thing is to read and follow the instructions. The primer I use needs at least 24 hours to off-gas. The primer is dry to touch in one hour. but the acid needs at least 24 hours to leave the primer for top coating. > > James > > > > --- On Sat, 10/29/11, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > > > > From: Denis Buggy > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: ETCH PRIMER > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, October 29, 2011, 5:16 PM > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > - > > DEAR ALL I AM POSTING IN CAPS TO DIFFER FROM THE POST BELOW AND TO HELP ANY PERSON LIKE MYSELF WHO LIKES LARGE FONTS--- AS AT MY AGE IT MAKES LIFE EASIER -- I KNOW IT DRIVES SOME OF YOU NUTS AS YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING -- ONLY YOU HEAR THE NOISE . > > THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL POST ON PAINT AS ALL PREVIOUS ADVICE HAS NO VALUE DESPITE USING ETCH PRIMER FOR 35 YEARS AND THEN WASHING THE PAINTWORK WITH A 3000 PSI POWERWASHER DURING THAT TIME -- MY ADVICE IS WORTHLESS . > > HERE WE GO FOR THE FINAL TIME --- LOOK UP PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR FREE ON AKZO NOBEL.COM -- THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST MARINE PAINTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE FAMOUS AWLGRIP PAINT -- THE WORLDWIDE FAVOURITE FOR SUPERYACHTS . > > ETCH PRIMER APPLIED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS WORKS -- IF YOU DO SOMETHING TECHNIAL WITH DIFFERENT CHEMICALS AT THE SAME TIME ON UN PREPARED SURFACES WHILE RELYING ON FOLKLORE DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THINGS DO NOT GO AS EXPECTED . > > HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL FROM IRELAND > > DENIS BUGGY > > > > Bruce Cope said that etch primer was softer than the epoxy put over it, so it made chipping the epoxy easier, and more likely. The same etch primer, recomended by some paint companies for steel, is a total disaster on steel. > > A sand blasted surface needs no etching if you cover it quickly enough. > > > > . > > > > [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] > | 26939|26907|2011-11-13 18:37:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion and the moon .....|On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 01:11:43PM +0100, Bruno Ogorelec wrote: > Ben, Tesla was my compatriot. His birthplace is about a hundred miles from > where I live. I am strongly impressed by his achievements and almost as > strongly impressed by his failures. Truly an amazing guy. A countryman to be proud of, indeed. > And I absolutely agree with what you wrote about him and about the > attention he has recently been receiving. :) I try my best not to let my respect for his real accomplishments become soured by his worshippers' craziness. He really was a great man in some ways, and his work led directly to many of the underpinnings of our civilization. But to make some mythical nonsense out of his work is, to me, one of the worst insults possible to his memory: it overshadows and obscures the real story, and that's something I consider to be highly disrespectful. 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| 26940|26820|2011-11-14 02:00:08|badpirate36|Re: bad pirate pilot house height|Hi Martin, the cabin top is 15 inches above deck and has a 6 inch camber, the pilothouse is 13 inches above the cabin. I'm planning on a hard dodger it'll be a couple feet above the pilot house to permit standing room in the cockpit. thanx for the interest, Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Bad pirate, > > Nice pictures of your boat! > I would like to know how high is your pilothouse compare to the cabin top? > > thanks, Martin. > | 26941|26895|2011-11-14 02:53:09|badpirate36|Re: Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|Thanx for the replies, it seems 80gals is plenty of water storage for making passages. But what about at anchor when the long passage is over? My neighbor was lamenting about not having enough capacity while anchored in the tropics, hot humid climates mean lots showers. Colapseable bags under the settee's could provide extra capacity while anchored and the space used for storage when under way. However, permament tanks could be connected with a pump for adjusting trim or used to move water ballast if only one tank were filled while underway. How much water ballast would be required to make a noticable difference when sailing to windward on a BS/36. hmmm... Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I once left mexico with 28 gallons in a tank, which still had a lot in it 38 days later when I arived back in BC. > I once left Bora bora with 55 gallons of water and arived in Hilo a month later with 50. > I kept a bucket under the gooseneck and kept toping up the tank with rainwater from the tradewind squalls. The first few days out, I was being super careful with my water, the last week out I was washing everything in fresh water. > A half gallon per day per person will keep you healthy. 80 gallons is more than enough. I've never had that much water, heading out to sea. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > | 26942|26942|2011-11-14 03:13:27|Randy|Standing Rig|Still hoping to build a BS 30 or 36 one day...Ah, my dream....whenever a piece of property decides to sell. In the meantime I'm having to replace the standing rig on my 30' glass boat. I'd like to go galvanized (1X7) but I had one question that I would love to get some opinions on. Short of pouring the forms to attach the wire to the tangs or altering the mast, does anyone see any problems with just using another turnbuckle? That would put turnbuckles at both ends, but it seemed a possible route to go. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be most grateful. Randy| 26943|26907|2011-11-14 07:08:58|David Frantz|Re: Electric Propulsion|Ben I'm surprised you posted this. You may have gotten away with it but I hope you have not encouraged any body else to do the same. There are two things in electronics one doesn't want to experience, they are shorted batteries or capacitors. Every battery should be handled with care commensurate with its energy capacity. Now the other poster may have overstated his position but one really needs to know what you are working with. The other thing here is the number of battery chemistries available today allow for addressing the issue with raw acid. Personally I'm neutral on the concept of electrical propulsion. For the right people it is a good choice now, but it isn't for everybody. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: >> >> HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS TO >> DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID >> FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . >> ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A >> SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD >> AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE >> AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES >> ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE >> WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY >> WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > > Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for > myself. :) > > First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up > on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my > fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... > nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing > that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to > clean up. > > Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining > my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one > terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps > (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point > of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter > fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance > across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the > battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... > my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That > means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was > a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours > - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > > Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to > play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, > and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda > cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my > "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's > another business plan down the drain... > > > Pic of an Optima battery under water: > http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > > Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them > power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for > all I know. Searching Google for > > batteries "work under water" > > will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > > (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little > damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would > eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 > back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of > water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26944|26907|2011-11-14 07:50:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:08:41AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > Ben > > I'm surprised you posted this. You may have gotten away with it but > I hope you have not encouraged any body else to do the same. See, this is the problem: religious belief and fear rather than actual knowledge. I didn't "get away" with anything, David: this is the bog-standard behavior for that kind of voltage and across that kind of a (quite high) resistance. Water itself, as I mention in my video, is essentially non-conductive - only the minerals that are present in it can create a conductivity path. I wasn't discovering anything there, but simply demonstrating a basic fact: there is no danger whatsoever in 12V being applied across seawater. Please note, by the way, that in the video I have the contacts spaced about 1/8" apart. This is _much_ closer than they would be if the top of the battery were simply flooded; that would put them about 6" apart, increasing the resistance by approximately 50 times and preventing any reaction whatsoever. So, please - now that we have some actual evidence rather than the panic-based imaginary explosions and shorted batteries - can we not have *this* particular religious discussion anymore? Electricity is *not* magical. It's *not* maliciously waiting for you so it can leap out and savagely fry your gonads as soon as it can catch you in the slightest mistake. It does not lie awake at night dreaming and slavering about how it's going to slaughter your children, your pets, and your relatives and hang their smoking intestines on the chandeliers. No matter how many people, including THOSE WHO CAN'T USE LOWER CASE IN THEIR POSTS, believe those things [1], they are not true. Once you understand the basics, electricity is quite a tame and useful beast - perhaps the most powerful and useful thing that mankind has yet put to use. Paranoia has no place in dealing with it. > There > are two things in electronics one doesn't want to experience, they are > shorted batteries or capacitors. I've experienced - and in fact purposely caused - both of these many times (placing a high load across a battery to test it, and discharging capacitors.) Neither one is particularly dangerous if you know what to expect and take the appropriate precautions. *But* - and this is the salient point here - any discussion of shorted batteries is *not applicable* here, since *** SEAWATER IS ONLY MARGINALLY CONDUCTIVE **** (Perhaps the DENIS TECHNIQUE will work to emphasize this important point; I don't know. :) > Every battery should be handled > with care commensurate with its energy capacity. Agreed. In what way does that apply here? > Now the other poster may have overstated his position but one really > needs to know what you are working with. Doubly agreed. And my point is that a number of people in this discussion - and I'm afraid that includes you - have made statements that demonstrate the opposite. I really find it hard to understand *why*, when the basic electrical knowledge, calculations, experience, and available data all point to the same simple answer: there is no danger whatsoever in putting seawater across a 12V battery's terminals. Why is that so hard to get? > The other thing here is the > number of battery chemistries available today allow for addressing the > issue with raw acid. Personally I'm neutral on the concept of > electrical propulsion. For the right people it is a good choice now, > but it isn't for everybody. Agreed. I've run the numbers, and even with my strong desire to have an e-drive on my boat, I wasn't able to justify doing so. This is particularly apropos since I've just finished swapping out my diesel; I was very much in favor of changing it out for an e-drive, but just couldn't make the usage scenario work for me. [1] That, Denis, is just a slight touch of sarcasm. A bit hard to distinguish from irony, but then, language is a subtle beast - perhaps even more dangerous than electricity, in some ways. :) 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| 26945|26942|2011-11-14 09:14:47|Matt Malone|Re: Standing Rig|Turnbuckles are heavy. Perhaps a clevis ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: JIFD@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:13:24 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Standing Rig Still hoping to build a BS 30 or 36 one day...Ah, my dream....whenever a piece of property decides to sell. In the meantime I'm having to replace the standing rig on my 30' glass boat. I'd like to go galvanized (1X7) but I had one question that I would love to get some opinions on. Short of pouring the forms to attach the wire to the tangs or altering the mast, does anyone see any problems with just using another turnbuckle? That would put turnbuckles at both ends, but it seemed a possible route to go. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be most grateful. Randy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26946|26907|2011-11-14 13:31:27|jhess314|Lead-Acid battery explosion|Ben, You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. I think you owe Denis an apology. Peace, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > > worried about that either. > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > > me. > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > future. ;) > > 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 > | 26947|26907|2011-11-14 14:18:51|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|All batteries should be in a case that is acid proof from the inside - and therefore by default waterproof from the outside. There should be a lid on the box that overlaps the sides so that any water that may splash the box doesn't run inside. Many cruising boats today have large battery banks - 800AH, 1000AH or more for normal shipboard items like refrigeration, watermakers as well as the normal lighting and nav equipment. Many boats have inverters as well, many of them quite large. Proper placement in a waterproof box and there should not be an issue. As far as electric propulsion, the big problem is range. A tank of diesel (or gasoline) packs an amount of energy that can't be duplicated with batteries on a boat of reasonable size. For one who primarily daysails or goes out for the weekend it can work well, recharging the batteries from shorepower after the trip is over. But imagine a 2 or 3 week trip from Vancouver or Victoria to Desolation Sound. You won't find much shorepower up there and the few places it exists you really don't want to be anyway - you would much sooner be anchored in Melanie Cove or Roscoe Bay. Add the fact that in the summer the wind is often light or from the wrong direction and many motor a lot of the time. Narrow channels and tides contribute to the problem as well. Solar is not an answer really as you would need to cover the boat with panels to provide power for the propulsion batteries as well as the house bank the boat needs for its other systems. Wind generators aren't a solution as the winds are pretty light in the summer. Many would go with a hybrid system - a generator running on gasoline to charge the batteries. It would take many hours to charge a large bank this way. And you and your neighbours have to listen to it as well. Durability of electric propulsion systems for smaller boats has not been around long enough to be judged accurately yet either - but a properly maintained diesel will last decades. I doubt the electric motors and their controllers currently available will last anywhere near as long. Batteries will need replacement after 5 years or so as well. I don't think electric is a viable system at this time other than for those that can recharge on shorepower regularly. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Thank you Dennis, I had never dropped a battery into water. Even if it > were not for the chlorine, I was thinking that the hydrogen and oxygen from > electrolysis of water would be an added fire/explosion hazard. > > As for electric cars / buses... at least the passenger compartment can be > isolated from the batteries a lot better, and no one expects them to work > in ocean waves... As for re-charging batteries from a coal / oil / > natural gas plant, there are all sorts of arguments, however, the largest > one I can see is, a vehicle engine, running on the same fuel is only 30% > efficient, the rest is waste heat. Even if the plant is no more efficient, > which it should be able to be, at least the waste heat from a plant can be > piped away and heat buildings. It is called co-generation, and it works > well. That 70% is a huge thing. One cannot hook a fuel car up to a long > hose to capture and use the waste heat. I think the arguments over energy > production cost of the car and batteries is a much smaller thing relative > to the 70% heat waste. Now we just need a law that requires energy > producers to participate in co-generation, and give away their waste heat > for free to towns and cities. A lot of energy will be saved in building > heating. > > Tesla, yes interesting guy. Do you have any links to what was in the > shoebox ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: denis@... > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:31:50 +0000 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MATT > > I ONCE LET A CAR BATTERY FALL INTO A FLOODED PIT --IT WAS FLAT --HOWEVER > IT > > EXPLODED AND DRENCHED ME IN ACID. > > I RAN TO A HOSE AND CAME BACK IN AND LOOKED AT THE REMAINS --IT HAD BLOWN > > COMPLETELY BOTH SIDES OF THE PLASTIC CASING OFF . > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS > TO > > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > > FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > > ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > > SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE > WORLD > > AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > > YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > > AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > > ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN THE > > WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > > WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > > > > AS ACID BEING DRIVEN BY AN EXPLOSION INTO EVERY CREVICE AND EVERYTHING ON > > YOUR BOAT > > -- YOU CANNOT TRANSMIT A REPAIR BY THE SAME MEANS AS THE ACCIDENT -- > > THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE THE ACCIDENT -- FORGET ABOUT LARGE BATTERY BANKS ON > A > > BOAT . > > I HAVE WORKED WITH LARGE BATTERIES ALL MY LIFE AND THEY ARE VERY > > DANGEROUS -- YOU CAN HAVE A FAULTY CELL IN ONE BATTERY AND IT CAN GET YOU > BY > > BOILING THE COMPANION BATTERY > > -- IT ALL LOOKS FINE THEN BANG -- > > I NOW RUB MY FINGER ALONG THE LENGTH OF EACH BATTERY AS I CAN QUICKLY TELL > > THEIR HEALTH BY TEMPERATURE -- > > THE GAS GIVEN OFF BY A AGING BATTERY WILL WRECK YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR BOAT > > BY STRIPPING A LAYER FROM ANYTHING IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH -- > > ACID IS CRUEL SHIT -- THERE ARE NO SPARE PARTS FOR YOUR LUNGS OR EYES -- > > KNOWING WHAT I KNOW I FIND TALK OF ELECTRICAL DRIVEN CARS OR BUSES OR BOATS > > THE HEIGHT OF BULLSHIT > > AS THE SMOKE STACKS OVER THE HILL PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY TO PLUG INTO > > YOUR GREEN/BLACK CAR ON THIS SIDE OF THE HILL AT A NUMBSKULL COST . > > ONLY ONE MAN GOT IT RIGHT -- IN 1929 > > NICOLA TESLA DROVE A BRAND NEW PIERCE ARROW CAR FOR A WEEK FOLLOWED BY > > JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS SOMETIMES AT 90MPH AND EACH DAY THEY > > PHOTOGRAPHED EACH INCH OF THE CAR AND LOOKED AT ITS 80 HP AC MOTOR DRIVEN > BY > > A SHOE BOX WITH TWO WIRES LEADING FROM IT-- RESTING ON THE FRONT SEAT OF > > THE CAR -- WHEN THEY ACCUSED HIM OF WITCHCRAFT AFTER A WEEK OF LOOKING AT > > THE SHOE BOX HE TOOK HIS SHOE BOX AND DEPARTED LEAVING THE COMPLETE PIERCE > > ARROW CAR TO BE RETURNED TO THE PIERCE ARROW FACTORY TO HAVE AN RAD-ENGINE > > AND FUEL TANKS FITTED . > > NOBODY IS FUNDING THE MANY PEOPLE WHO TODAY CAN DOWNLOAD ELECTRICITY FROM > > THE AIR . > > WHEN YOU RESEARCH LIGHTNING YOU ARE INFORMED THAT AN AVERAGE TROPICAL > > THUNDERSTORM HAS THE POWER/ ENERGY OF A HIROSHIMA BOMB -- NO MOVING METAL > > PARTS -NO SWITCHES --NO CONTROLS NO STAFF. > > ONLY ONE MAN DARED TO FIGURE IT OUT AND BUILT A COIL KNOWN AS THE TESLA > > COIL AND MADE HIS LIGHTNING . > > MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE MAN WHO INVENTED > > THE RADIO -X RAY - NEON - FLUORESCENT . AC ELECTRICITY .AC MOTOR AND > > HUNDREDS OF OTHER ESSENTIALS TO OUR LIFE TODAY . > > REGARDS DENIS BUGGY > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matt Malone" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:59 PM > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I am concerned about with electric is salt water. A diesel can > > > be under water, or at least thoroughly drenched, and running is certainly > > > not out of the question. The gasoline motor in my boat is near the > > > bilge, but above the 30 gallon line in the bilge, probably 80-100 gallons > > > before the water touches and that would throw up a spray and wet out the > > > ignition. It has a nice drip-hatch to keep it from getting drenched in > > > the in-coming water. Not optimal, but, with every change, I intend to > > > make improvements. I am still mulling an electric conversion, or > > > electric augmentation, as one of those things far down the list of > > > priorities. > > > > > > The electric motor itself, if it is water-cooled can certainly be > > > completely sealed, immune to drenching, and would probably work > completely > > > under water for a time too, longer if one could pressurize the case. > What > > > I am thinking about are the batteries. It has come up before that > > > because of the size of the battery's case, they are not very dense as > > > ballast, not as good as concrete even, which is not very good. However, > > > they are still really heavy, far heavier than my gas engine, so you are > > > not going to mount them up high. Chances are, the batteries are going > to > > > be down in the keel / bilge area. So, chances are, the first bucket of > > > seawater that comes in, will come to rest down near your batteries > > > somewhere. Not too many buckets later, and the batteries are awash and > > > that would seem to be a problem for the batteries. Sealing the battery > > > area water tight against standing water is not easy if you want it > > > accessible at other times, to add electrolyte, balance charge, or balance > > > discharge. > > > > > > If my batteries were lithium, I would just mount them about 1,000 gallons > > > up from the bottom of the bilge, in an nice drench-proof drip-off case, > > > and not worry about it ... any more than I would already worry about a > > > lithium bomb on my boat... Ships have battery rooms and special vents, > > > and special doors, and a whole lot of safety surrounding batteries. > > > Wedging batteries into a small boat without those measures... A lot to > > > consider. > > > > > > That is before thinking about seawater, a conductor, even a little splash > > > of it, and likely voltages on your battery pack, and humans being around > > > them. My boat is a really old one, and it seems from the design that > > > everything is built expecting a few buckets of will water make it into > the > > > boat. A cup of salt water, and 60-100 Volts DC is really dangerous. > > > Even 30-50 Volts is darn uncomfortable when you get a really good > > > conductive contact, as I most recently reminded myself with my arc > welder. > > > It could have been worse. I could have been in a metal boat, with a > > > couple of floor hatches off, spread-eagled across a couple of floor > beams, > > > intending to fiddle with a bilge pump inlet down by my batteries, when > the > > > boat lurched. > > > > > > I am having a hard time seeing "robust" and "safe" in large-scale > electric > > > installation with the inevitable salt water. I am considering keeping > my > > > electric it to small interchangeable thrusters, enough for docking. My > > > house batteries, 24 volts, are mounted about 1,000 gallons above the > > > bottom of the bilge, in a nice dry spot. If I need all the thrusters at > > > full to make it from 100 yards out, to 100 yards inside the breakwater, > > > and in the process put a serious dent in the charge on my house > batteries, > > > I do not see that as a big problem. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: akenai@... > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:08:03 -0800 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > Several of us have been looking at it but the best place is over at the > > > electric boats group. The guy that owns Bianka is there alot sharing info > > > about his progress along with many others. > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > Aaron Williams > > > > > > Creative Cuts and Welding > > > > > > P.O. Box 8027 > > > > > > Nikiski, Alaska 99635 > > > > > > 907-394-2940 > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: GP > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:40 AM > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Propulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been reading "Bianka Log Blog". This sailboat owner has installed > > > a electric propulsion system and seems quite delighted with having > > > replaced his diesel with it. He was mentioning that at boat shows there > > > are more and more electric propulsion systems appearing. I cruise > British > > > Columbia waters and I was wondering if anyone here has a comment or 2 > > > about going electric for BC waters. Thanks.. Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26948|26907|2011-11-14 14:19:05|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|Ben If the salt water mixes with the battery acid you will get a violent chemical explosion as Denis described and chlorine gas as well. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:31:50PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > > HAD IT BEEN CHARGED AND LANDING IN SEA WATER YOU WOULD HAVE CHLORINE GAS > TO > > DEAL WITH ALSO -- HOW YOU WOULD REMOVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF SULPHURIC ACID > > FROM YOUR BOAT WHILE AT SEA I DO NOT KNOW . > > ALL YOUR CLOTHES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE DESTROYED -- THIS IS NOT A > > SMALL THING -IT IS AN MEDIUM SIZED INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IN YOUR LITTLE > WORLD > > AT SEA -- YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DEAL WITH IT . > > YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE TIME TO JUMP OVERBOARD AND UPWIND WITH A ROPE > > AND WASH YOURSELF OFF IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR EYES > > ESCAPE -- YOU CANNOT CARE FOR ANYBODY ELSE AS YOU MUST STAY UP WIND IN > THE > > WATER WHILE HOLDING A ROPE --UNTIL THE GAS CLEARS -- NOT EASY > > WATER DAMAGE IS NOT THE SAME > > Sounds absolutely terrifying. So I just had to experiment and see for > myself. :) > > First, I heroically performed the death-defying act of actually going up > on deck, getting some seawater, and pouring it on top of my > fully-charged start battery. Darn it, no explosion. Just tried again... > nope, still no bang, or flying acid, or anything. Shucks. Good thing > that it's sitting in a plastic battery box; at least it'll be easy to > clean up. > > Wait, I've got an idea!!! It's probably shorting everything and draining > my poor battery as I watch... I carefully wiped a dry path around one > terminal and measured across that path - hmm, less than two milliamps > (even that was kinda hard to get; I had to fiddle about to find a point > of max contact with the water. It might have been just a meter > fluctuation.) Let's see... what happens if I measure the resistance > across 6 inches of seawater (i.e., about the distance between the > battery terminals)? Maybe that'll show me the error of my ways! Hmmm... > my 4-1/2 digit multimeter shows about 150k ohms, fairly steady. That > means, let's see, 12v / 150k = 80 microamps (I guess that 2mA really was > a fluke.) That would take, let's see, about 1.2 million hours > - a.k.a. about 137 years - to drain a 100Ah battery. > > Somehow, the fearsome seawater-on-battery scenario has totally failed to > play out for me. I guess I'm just lucky. Although fireworks, explosions, > and wholesale destruction of life and property would have been kinda > cool; I could probably have convinced Bruce Willis to star in my > "Batteries of Death" movie and made a billion bucks. [sigh] There's > another business plan down the drain... > > Pic of an Optima battery under water: > http://www.autobarn.com/images/optima/underwater.jpg > > Deka used to advertise their AGM batteries at boat shows by having them > power a set of lights while sitting in an aquarium; they still may, for > all I know. Searching Google for > > batteries "work under water" > > will return a number of various other battery company ads as well. > > (Note: plain flooded lead-acid batteries may themselves take a little > damage by having salt water enter the cells; if not replaced, it would > eventually settle on the lead plates and prevent the conversion of PbSo4 > back to lead. AGMs and other VRLAs are sealed, though; no chance of > water entry. That being Deka's, etc. whole point.) > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26949|26895|2011-11-14 14:27:16|brentswain38|Re: Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|In the tropics you don't need showers. I just jump overboard and swim a few laps around the boat, several times day, down there. Liquid dish soap works well in sea water. At sea, a two litre plastic bucket lets me dump seawater over me in the cockpit, when I get too hot. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > Thanx for the replies, it seems 80gals is plenty of water storage for making passages. But what about at anchor when the long passage is over? My neighbor was lamenting about not having enough capacity while anchored in the tropics, hot humid climates mean lots showers. > Colapseable bags under the settee's could provide extra capacity while anchored and the space used for storage when under way. However, permament tanks could be connected with a pump for adjusting trim or used to move water ballast if only one tank were filled while underway. How much water ballast would be required to make a noticable difference when sailing to windward on a BS/36. > > hmmm... > Tom > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I once left mexico with 28 gallons in a tank, which still had a lot in it 38 days later when I arived back in BC. > > I once left Bora bora with 55 gallons of water and arived in Hilo a month later with 50. > > I kept a bucket under the gooseneck and kept toping up the tank with rainwater from the tradewind squalls. The first few days out, I was being super careful with my water, the last week out I was washing everything in fresh water. > > A half gallon per day per person will keep you healthy. 80 gallons is more than enough. I've never had that much water, heading out to sea. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > > > > > You're gonna make some, your gonna catch some, hell, you're even gonna pass some. > > > Water storage, how much do you need on a blue water boat? I'm not sailing non-stop around the world, Just cruise'in for two with a few long passages. I have a bs36 with a integral water tank of aprox 80 gal built into the keel(photo; aluminium BS36) assuming the water maker breaks down,(not that big a stretch) and there isn't any rain.(yeah, I wish) how much water capacity would see you safe and smelly to the other side. > > > > > > | 26950|26942|2011-11-14 14:30:28|brentswain38|Re: Standing Rig|Making up a couple of matching tangs with bolts should be much eaiser and cheaper. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > Still hoping to build a BS 30 or 36 one day...Ah, my dream....whenever a piece of property decides to sell. In the meantime I'm having to replace the standing rig on my 30' glass boat. I'd like to go galvanized (1X7) but I had one question that I would love to get some opinions on. Short of pouring the forms to attach the wire to the tangs or altering the mast, does anyone see any problems with just using another turnbuckle? That would put turnbuckles at both ends, but it seemed a possible route to go. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be most grateful. > > Randy > | 26951|26907|2011-11-14 14:33:17|brentswain38|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|In a boat, it produces a tiny amoint of hydrogen in a huge amount of air. Hydrogen, being lighter than air, rises out of the boat. It would take a much larger percentage of hydrogen , held down, to produce an explosion. When my starting battery was submerged in seawater, it didn't explode, and is still working a year and a half later. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Ben, > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > Peace, > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > > > worried about that either. > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > > > me. > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > future. ;) > > > > 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 > > > | 26952|26907|2011-11-14 14:36:27|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:36:24PM -0800, Brian Stannard wrote: > Ben > > If the salt water mixes with the battery acid you will get a violent > chemical explosion as Denis described and chlorine gas as well. So far, common sense alone tells me that this is completely incorrect. Do you have anything like proof? A video, perhaps? I'm afraid that I don't have an FLA, or any liquid battery acid on board, so I can't make another video - but surely, it's someone else's turn to actually, y'know, put some cash on the barrel. Until that happens, this is nothing more than another unproven and unwarranted assumption. 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| 26953|26907|2011-11-14 14:53:47|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 06:31:25PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > Ben, > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. [shrug] Perhaps your opinion is meaningful to you. It isn't to me. > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. They can also be thrown into a vat of nitroglycerin, where they'll cause an explosion. They can be connected to an electrical fuze, which can be inserted into a stick of dynamite - which will then explode. Also, if they're dropped from Earth's orbit, they'll impact with enough energy that it'll look like an explosion. Lead-acid batteries do not produce hydrogen when dropped, which is what was under discussion. They can produce some hydrogen when *charged* - which was not under discussion. In addition, the hydrogen cannot explode when inside the batteries - no source of spark - and when outside them, would not cause them to explode (in theory, it could crack the casing if not valved off.) So, no - despite your patently-false attempt to drag the discussion onto a completely different ground, batteries _still_ do not explode. > I think you owe Denis an apology. In fact, I believe you owe me - as well as the entire group - an apology, for sticking your oar in with this particular red herring. Were you trying to look like a Good Guy for defending poor, innocent, defenseless Denis? You've failed... in addition to actually insulting him with your attempted "defense". I actually grant Denis enough respect to assume that he's fully capable of upholding his end of the conversation, not participating, or making whatever other decision he chooses; you've forced yourself in as his "defender" - all unasked for - as though he was a small child. Smooth move there, Slick. Why not read up a bit on social dynamics, and how fights on the Net get started? Hint: it's usually not the original people in the discussion, but some third self-righteous busybody. Take a wild guess at the position you're in right now? 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| 26954|26907|2011-11-14 14:56:58|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Electric Propulsion|Actually, ALL forms of industrial electrical motors will vastly outlast any ICE on the planet. For about 1/10 the maintenance work, and way less than 1/10 the maintenance cost. Both brushless motors and 3-phase motors are well proven, and my 60 year old industrial 3-phase motor is still silent in use, and runs just fine. It has had maybe 20 to 50.000 hours of use, and runs perfectly. Avg lifetimes for industrial motors are way higher than diesels, especially small boat diesels. Typical lifetimes (best case). Electric brushless or 3-phase motors: 20-50.000 hours Well maintained heavy diesels in active use: 10-20.000 hours Small boat diesels: 3000-5000 hours Small boat gas engines: 2000-5000 hours Almost all small boat engines die from lack of use, rather than use. Most of the failures are from corrosion not applicable to electric engines. Controllers are probably the weak spot, and might have a 5-15 year lifetime. A controller is a relatively trivial cost, and can be easily replaced from any nr of manufacturer, with little installation. A 3000$ controller today will be under 500$ in 10 years (components cost under 200$ in qty). Replacing one is a few hours to a days job for any industrial electrician - ie cheap, easy and not tied to a given manufacturer. OTOH, industrial controllers regularly last 30 years, and there is not reason to expect a well-built marine installation will fail earlier. Experiences of the same are not available, though. > I doubt the electric motors and their > controllers currently available will last anywhere near as long. Batteries > will need replacement after 5 years or so as well. | 26955|26895|2011-11-14 14:57:14|Ben Okopnik|Re: Water capacity on a blue water boat.?|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:26:55PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > In the tropics you don't need showers. I just jump overboard and swim a few laps around the boat, several times day, down there. Liquid dish soap works well in sea water. > At sea, a two litre plastic bucket lets me dump seawater over me in the cockpit, when I get too hot. Yep; that's pretty much the standard cruiser "shower". If you like, a 2-gallon pump-up "bug sprayer" (especially one painted black) will provide fresh water that you can use to rinse off afterwards - a couple of ounces is more than sufficient. I had one for years, and loved the thing... recently, though, I've been spoiled by pressure water. :) I guarantee you I'll turn that automatic pump off, though, when I make my next long crossing. No _way_ do I want to wake up to a bilge full of fresh water and not an ounce to drink, with 3 days still to go to the next port. 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| 26956|26907|2011-11-14 15:03:59|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own (fire, explosion). Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in experiences reported. What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to attack): A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks for them. http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 American Bureau of Shipping Rules: http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide Phsyiology of Electric Shock http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm An exerpt from this page: "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can be determined by the formula T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 Ohms on a person, however: - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds like sailing to me * ), and - is in good contact with a large terminal, I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the table is above the threshold for: "Can't let go of conductor" and somewhere between: "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" and "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly fatal - Fatal if continued" By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 seconds. With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull you off the terminal. If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with good safeguards, there may be a problem. Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am trying to make.) On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper precautions. Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally un-complementary comments. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: j.hess@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion Ben, You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. I think you owe Denis an apology. Peace, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > > worried about that either. > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > > me. > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > future. ;) > > 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] | 26957|26907|2011-11-14 16:41:12|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|I took him at his word that the battery exploded - he was there. You will get chlorine gas if the water is salt. If the battery was charging there will be hydrogen above the plates and if the battery is sufficiently damaged when it lands you could possibly get an arc internally. When a battery explodes when shorting it after or during charging it is the hydrogen that explodes. Your experiment, which I watched, doesn't prove much unless it takes place in a battery under pressure I don't think. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:36:24PM -0800, Brian Stannard wrote: > > Ben > > > > If the salt water mixes with the battery acid you will get a violent > > chemical explosion as Denis described and chlorine gas as well. > > So far, common sense alone tells me that this is completely incorrect. > Do you have anything like proof? A video, perhaps? I'm afraid that I > don't have an FLA, or any liquid battery acid on board, so I can't make > another video - but surely, it's someone else's turn to actually, > y'know, put some cash on the barrel. > > Until that happens, this is nothing more than another unproven and > unwarranted assumption. > > 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 > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26958|26907|2011-11-14 16:42:51|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|In a salt water environment? Time will tell I guess. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:56 AM, "hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs < gcode.fi@...> wrote: > ** > > > Actually, ALL forms of industrial electrical motors will vastly outlast > any ICE on the planet. > > For about 1/10 the maintenance work, and way less than 1/10 the > maintenance cost. > Both brushless motors and 3-phase motors are well proven, and my 60 year > old industrial 3-phase motor is still silent in use, and runs just fine. > It has had maybe 20 to 50.000 hours of use, and runs perfectly. > > Avg lifetimes for industrial motors are way higher than diesels, > especially small boat diesels. > Typical lifetimes (best case). > > Electric brushless or 3-phase motors: 20-50.000 hours > Well maintained heavy diesels in active use: 10-20.000 hours > Small boat diesels: 3000-5000 hours > Small boat gas engines: 2000-5000 hours > > Almost all small boat engines die from lack of use, rather than use. > Most of the failures are from corrosion not applicable to electric engines. > > Controllers are probably the weak spot, and might have a 5-15 year > lifetime. > A controller is a relatively trivial cost, and can be easily replaced > from any nr of manufacturer, with little installation. > A 3000$ controller today will be under 500$ in 10 years (components cost > under 200$ in qty). > Replacing one is a few hours to a days job for any industrial > electrician - ie cheap, easy and not tied to a given manufacturer. > > OTOH, industrial controllers regularly last 30 years, and there is not > reason to expect a well-built marine installation will fail earlier. > Experiences of the same are not available, though. > > > I doubt the electric motors and their > > controllers currently available will last anywhere near as long. > Batteries > > will need replacement after 5 years or so as well. > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26959|26959|2011-11-14 17:39:33|Denis Buggy|explanation re batteries|I am not directing this post at anybody . I merely wish to clarify where I am coming from with this battery thread . my experience is very different from most of you as I do not have anything bigger than a Malibu sit on top canoe . however I do work with batteries and they are subjected to stresses you do not come across -- the buses are fitted with telma retarders this is an electric eddey current brake which draws 69.9 amps per stage x four stages =280 amps + whatever else is on at the time lights heaters ect . our work is mainly stopstart all day long LOCAL BUS SERVICES and taking 300 amps for a few minutes and then surging the replenishing charge with a pair of prestolite AC203R alternators @ 180 amps each -- every few minutes all day long thrashes the batteries and if there is one weak cell it will find it and boil the battery as all amps must pass the weakest link . you combine this thrashing with occasionally mismatched batteries which is lethal -- this can arise from one battery simply sulfiding faster than the others -- some of the batteries have stick on labels which amazingly disappear when you wash them with a power hose AMAZING SAFETY FEATURE which will cause you to guess what amps the battery is and guess are you matching correct with correct as if you get it wrong one will slowly discharge while you boil its companion with 360 amps as all the vehicles are 24 volt = twin 12volt batteries . you also can have genius trouble == a person sending a small wire to only one battery to give a 12volt current to a drivers new radio -- without telling anybody -- this results in one battery slowly discharging while the regulator senses a voltage drop across both and boils the companion battery . you can occasionally hear a bad battery hiss like an airhose when being rapidly charged or discharged , this hissing is the volume production of gas. when this is your experience you come across as a frightened rabbit where batteries are concerned as you try and warn others . where safety is concerned I have an over the top attitude which is some times justified in order to communicate the dangers and in truth to cover my ass -- however in print it does not translate well and is alarmist to a degree - however NONE OF WHAT I SAID IS UNTRUE -- WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED . in truth until this thread developed I had not formally made my self aware of the safety sheets regarding batteries -- my knowledge was based on experience and that experience showed me that repeatedly luck saved me not plastic glasses which I wear and encourage everybody to wear . that luck usually meant the acid was blocked by something usually my large arse as I remove and fit terminals blind . IF YOU EVEN SUSPECT I MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH THAT WILL DO AS A WARNING AND OTHERS HAVE STATED THE CASE VERY CLEARLY WITHOUT MY DRAMATIC RETELLING OF EVENTS WHICH UNWILLINGLY LIT FLAMES IN DARK PLACES BUT FAILED TO ILLUMINATE . regards and thanks to all denis buggy explanation [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26960|26959|2011-11-14 17:49:25|Matt Malone|Re: explanation re batteries|>you also can have genius trouble == a person sending a small wire to only >one battery to give a 12volt current to a drivers new radio -- without telling >anybody -- this results in one battery slowly discharging while the regulator >senses a voltage drop across both and boils the companion battery . Some buses have built-in battery equalizers that can pull a good fraction of 100 Amps from 24 and use it to charge the 12, or viceversa. Adds a new wrinkle when things go wrong. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: denis@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:39:27 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] explanation re batteries I am not directing this post at anybody . I merely wish to clarify where I am coming from with this battery thread . my experience is very different from most of you as I do not have anything bigger than a Malibu sit on top canoe . however I do work with batteries and they are subjected to stresses you do not come across -- the buses are fitted with telma retarders this is an electric eddey current brake which draws 69.9 amps per stage x four stages =280 amps + whatever else is on at the time lights heaters ect . our work is mainly stopstart all day long LOCAL BUS SERVICES and taking 300 amps for a few minutes and then surging the replenishing charge with a pair of prestolite AC203R alternators @ 180 amps each -- every few minutes all day long thrashes the batteries and if there is one weak cell it will find it and boil the battery as all amps must pass the weakest link . you combine this thrashing with occasionally mismatched batteries which is lethal -- this can arise from one battery simply sulfiding faster than the others -- some of the batteries have stick on labels which amazingly disappear when you wash them with a power hose AMAZING SAFETY FEATURE which will cause you to guess what amps the battery is and guess are you matching correct with correct as if you get it wrong one will slowly discharge while you boil its companion with 360 amps as all the vehicles are 24 volt = twin 12volt batteries . you also can have genius trouble == a person sending a small wire to only one battery to give a 12volt current to a drivers new radio -- without telling anybody -- this results in one battery slowly discharging while the regulator senses a voltage drop across both and boils the companion battery . you can occasionally hear a bad battery hiss like an airhose when being rapidly charged or discharged , this hissing is the volume production of gas. when this is your experience you come across as a frightened rabbit where batteries are concerned as you try and warn others . where safety is concerned I have an over the top attitude which is some times justified in order to communicate the dangers and in truth to cover my ass -- however in print it does not translate well and is alarmist to a degree - however NONE OF WHAT I SAID IS UNTRUE -- WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED . in truth until this thread developed I had not formally made my self aware of the safety sheets regarding batteries -- my knowledge was based on experience and that experience showed me that repeatedly luck saved me not plastic glasses which I wear and encourage everybody to wear . that luck usually meant the acid was blocked by something usually my large arse as I remove and fit terminals blind . IF YOU EVEN SUSPECT I MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH THAT WILL DO AS A WARNING AND OTHERS HAVE STATED THE CASE VERY CLEARLY WITHOUT MY DRAMATIC RETELLING OF EVENTS WHICH UNWILLINGLY LIT FLAMES IN DARK PLACES BUT FAILED TO ILLUMINATE . regards and thanks to all denis buggy explanation [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26961|26907|2011-11-14 21:22:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:03:58PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to attack): [yawn] Back you go into the killfile, Matt. The last time, I gave you a two-week vacation from my inbox; this time, it's permanent. You've had your two chances, and there are far too many worthwhile people on this planet for me to waste any more time or effort on anyone who spends that much time proving themselves worthless. B'bye! [*plonk*] 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| 26962|26907|2011-11-14 21:31:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:41:06PM -0800, Brian Stannard wrote: > I took him at his word that the battery exploded - he was there. There are people out there who "saw" UFOs and ghosts; I spoke to a guy last year who sat across his own dinner table from Satan and argued with him all night (and won.) _They_ may find having "been there" a convincing argument; I do not. > You will get chlorine gas if the water is salt. You've said so before. Repeating it does not make it any more true. I note that you still don't have any proof, though. You should think really hard about why that might be. > Your experiment, which I watched, doesn't prove much unless it takes place > in a battery under pressure I don't think. At this point, you're going off into desperate conjecture. I'll try to correct this one last misconception - batteries do not normally operate under pressure - but unless you come up with something real, you're still operating from faith instead of actual knowledge. As long as you do that, there's not much point in us talking any further: baseless beliefs are not my bailiwick. 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| 26963|26959|2011-11-14 21:59:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: explanation re batteries|On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:39:27PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > where safety is concerned I have an over the top attitude which is > some times justified in order to communicate the dangers and in truth > to cover my ass -- however in print it does not translate well and is > alarmist to a degree - however NONE OF WHAT I SAID IS UNTRUE -- WHAT > HAPPENED HAPPENED . Speaking for myself, I have no basis for believing you _or_ disbelieving you; as I've mentioned, anything can happen. The alarmist attitude, though? You might want to give that some thought, since it'll usually achieve the opposite of what you're trying for. When you come across as an exaggerating panic-monger, the value that people will assign to what you're saying usually goes to zero. It is, in fact, most often the case that those who attempt to sway people via emotional appeals are trying to sell something; otherwise, the simple truth would serve. I would also advise you to consider what is called "observer bias": according to your description, you get to see batteries being abused and misused in some of the worst ways possible. The average battery, though, sees nothing like that; in fact, the average battery owner has essentially no means for abusing batteries that way. This is similar to cops who get to see criminals all day long and begin to treat everyone around them as criminals (most cops in the US, at least, get trained to be aware and work around it, though.) > IF YOU EVEN SUSPECT I MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH THAT WILL DO AS A WARNING > AND OTHERS HAVE STATED THE CASE VERY CLEARLY WITHOUT MY DRAMATIC > RETELLING OF EVENTS WHICH UNWILLINGLY LIT FLAMES IN DARK PLACES BUT > FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. Reasonable precautions are a good thing, and I'm not saying people shouldn't take them - but fear and panic can create even larger problems than the ones you started with. If you've ever had to get a snake out of a terrarium, grasping it quickly and firmly behind the head takes care of the problem instantly - but twitching, half-hearted approaches not only panic the poor animal but also give it a repeated target. That's pretty much a guaranteed trip to the hospital. 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| 26964|26907|2011-11-14 22:04:15|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Excellent. If only he could put the entire group in a kill file and just make original posts instead of abusive replies that would work for me too. So I wonder why he never put Denis in a kill file ... I guess he enjoys stomping on some people too much. Thing is, I can still read Ben's abuse of others, and can respond, and he has no idea what I am saying. If he thinks that is better then good. No comments on those references eh? Inconvenient that some reputable professional groups aren't ready to say, oh yeah, lots of batteries, no worries with that at all. Anyone who thinks there might be a problem has: - a false religious belief (Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:50:37 -0500), - a lack of common sense (Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:36:14 -0500), - valueless opinions (Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:53:38 -0500), - is crazy (Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:37:33 -0500), No, never saw any of those things in those references. Funny how science and safety procedures and guidelines leave out the put-downs. I work on live electrical systems from time to time. I am extra careful around mid and high voltage DC. I do not work on hazardous circuits soaking wet, with all my tools soaking wet, laying in a puddle, or balancing on a teeter-totter. There are some combinations that the safe way forward is just not entirely clear, and I would like to hear from people who have managed the challenges, and found solutions, not imagined there was no hazard. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:21:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:03:58PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to attack): [yawn] Back you go into the killfile, Matt. The last time, I gave you a two-week vacation from my inbox; this time, it's permanent. You've had your two chances, and there are far too many worthwhile people on this planet for me to waste any more time or effort on anyone who spends that much time proving themselves worthless. B'bye! [*plonk*] 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] | 26965|26907|2011-11-14 22:22:32|Brian Stannard|Re: Electric Propulsion|I would think a 50 or 60 pound battery that lands hard does have a pressure increase internally. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > ** > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:41:06PM -0800, Brian Stannard wrote: > > I took him at his word that the battery exploded - he was there. > > There are people out there who "saw" UFOs and ghosts; I spoke to a guy > last year who sat across his own dinner table from Satan and argued with > him all night (and won.) _They_ may find having "been there" a > convincing argument; I do not. > > > You will get chlorine gas if the water is salt. > > You've said so before. Repeating it does not make it any more true. I > note that you still don't have any proof, though. You should think > really hard about why that might be. > > > Your experiment, which I watched, doesn't prove much unless it takes > place > > in a battery under pressure I don't think. > > At this point, you're going off into desperate conjecture. I'll try to > correct this one last misconception - batteries do not normally operate > under pressure - but unless you come up with something real, you're > still operating from faith instead of actual knowledge. As long as you > do that, there's not much point in us talking any further: baseless > beliefs are not my bailiwick. > > 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 > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26966|26907|2011-11-14 23:20:24|brentswain38|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|It woud take a sealed battery room to contain enough concentration of hydrogen to get an explosion. Not much chance of that happening in a relatively more open battery box, where hydrogen is able to rise. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. > > Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. > > Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own (fire, explosion). > > Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in experiences reported. > > What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to attack): > > A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks for them. > http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf > > "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in > the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. > http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 > http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 > > > American Bureau of Shipping Rules: > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide > > > Phsyiology of Electric Shock > http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm > > > An exerpt from this page: > "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can be determined by the formula > T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is > the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the > person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." > > I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 Ohms on a person, however: > - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds like sailing to me * ), and > - is in good contact with a large terminal, > > I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. > > > > With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the table is above the threshold for: > "Can't let go of conductor" > and somewhere between: > "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" > > and > > "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly fatal - Fatal if continued" > > By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 seconds. > > > With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull you off the terminal. > > If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with good safeguards, there may be a problem. > > Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am trying to make.) > > On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. > > I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. > > Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper precautions. > > Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally un-complementary comments. > > Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: j.hess@... > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > > > Peace, > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. > > > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse > > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent > > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, > > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > > > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > > > > worried about that either. > > > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair > > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although > > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > > > > me. > > > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow > > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't > > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > > future. ;) > > > > > > 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] > | 26967|26907|2011-11-14 23:34:00|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|In normal use a battery would probably only explode if it was charging and was shorted by a wrench or something else. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > ** > > > It woud take a sealed battery room to contain enough concentration of > hydrogen to get an explosion. Not much chance of that happening in a > relatively more open battery box, where hydrogen is able to rise. . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. > > > > Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. > > > > Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own > (fire, explosion). > > > > Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are > so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in > experiences reported. > > > > What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not > going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. > > > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to > attack): > > > > A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks > for them. > > http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf > > > > "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in > > the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I > read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. > > http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 > > > http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 > > > > > > American Bureau of Shipping Rules: > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide > > > > > > Phsyiology of Electric Shock > > http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm > > > > > > An exerpt from this page: > > "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can > be determined by the formula > > T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is > > the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the > > person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." > > > > I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 > Ohms on a person, however: > > - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt > water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are > normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds > like sailing to me * ), and > > - is in good contact with a large terminal, > > > > I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. > > > > > > > > With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the > table is above the threshold for: > > "Can't let go of conductor" > > and somewhere between: > > "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" > > > > and > > > > "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly > fatal - Fatal if continued" > > > > By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 > seconds. > > > > > > With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you > off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer > until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. > Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students > working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. > Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull you > off the terminal. > > > > If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on > flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am > imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" > conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all > the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with > good safeguards, there may be a problem. > > > > Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) > Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt > water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the > same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a > little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER > -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am > trying to make.) > > > > On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. > Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE > calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something > between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild > shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 > Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... > but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. > > > > I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water > because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the > time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and > hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure > milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in > the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. > > > > Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I > am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not > at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to > sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS > and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper > precautions. > > > > Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally > un-complementary comments. > > > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: j.hess@... > > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > > > > > > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > > > > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section > entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > > > > > > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > John > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the > plates inside. > > > > > > > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > > > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > > > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to > confuse > > > > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > > > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > > > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > > > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > > > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > > > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > > > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > > > > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > > > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, > prominent > > > > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium > surrounding, > > > > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > > > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > > > > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. > :) ] > > > > > > > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not > to > > > > > > worried about that either. > > > > > > > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a > pair > > > > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > > > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > > > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, > although > > > > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > > > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > > > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > > > > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more > worried > > > > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or > poisoning > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to > bow > > > > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > > > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that > doesn't > > > > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > > > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > > > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > > > > future. ;) > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26968|26942|2011-11-15 00:12:09|harveyplanes|Re: Standing Rig|thanks much --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Making up a couple of matching tangs with bolts should be much eaiser and cheaper. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > > > Still hoping to build a BS 30 or 36 one day...Ah, my dream....whenever a piece of property decides to sell. In the meantime I'm having to replace the standing rig on my 30' glass boat. I'd like to go galvanized (1X7) but I had one question that I would love to get some opinions on. Short of pouring the forms to attach the wire to the tangs or altering the mast, does anyone see any problems with just using another turnbuckle? That would put turnbuckles at both ends, but it seemed a possible route to go. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be most grateful. > > > > Randy > > > | 26969|26907|2011-11-15 00:25:21|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|From Wikipedia... The magnitude of the electrical charge of one mole of elementary charges .... is equal to 96485.3399 coulombs. An Ampere is one Coulomb per second. A mole of hydrogen (H2) is 22.4 liters, so, for each Amp-second (Coulomb), perhaps 0.116cc of hydrogen is produced per cell, or about 0.7cc / 12 Volt battery. If one remembers lighting off a 5mL / cc test-tube of hydrogen in high school, it was quite a little pop -- about 1/6 of that, per amp-second, per 12V battery. At 50 Amperes (shore power?) charging of a 48 V system, how much hydrogen is produced in 1 minute? One produces about 8.35 liters of hydrogen... with combines in a perfectly explosive mixture with 21 liters of air.... a bit more of a problem. But hydrogen is flammable from about 4% to 75% concentration in air.... 4% mixes with 210 liters of air. That is like a Costco sized tote, or an entire bilge if the cover fits closely / there is little circulation. Divide everything by 10 and one has the charge rate for a good solar array 5 Amps / 48 V = 250 Watts. In any case, any sort of active venting of dozens of cubic feet per minute can overwhelm these. Yes, hydrogen rises, but without a wind and an open hatch, is it getting out of the boat that fast enough ? In a stagnant air situation, for even a few minutes at 50 Amperes or a good part of an hour at 5 Amperes, that is a lot of hydrogen. Would that be enough in a closed cabin in still air? And if one has the batteries inside drip-cover cases to protect them, like others suggested, is it possible, after a minute, all of the drip cases around the batteries are full of hydrogen ? Shutting off the charging system when the boat is sealed up might be a start. Or provide a little flow-through to keep concentrations down. Most boats would probably leak enough air most of the time. But, it would only take a handful of weatherstripping and a still day to create a problem. Matt --------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:20:22 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion It woud take a sealed battery room to contain enough concentration of hydrogen to get an explosion. Not much chance of that happening in a relatively more open battery box, where hydrogen is able to rise. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. > > Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. > > Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own (fire, explosion). > > Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in experiences reported. > > What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to attack): > > A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks for them. > http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf > > "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in > the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. > http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 > http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 > > > American Bureau of Shipping Rules: > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide > > > Phsyiology of Electric Shock > http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm > > > An exerpt from this page: > "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can be determined by the formula > T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is > the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the > person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." > > I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 Ohms on a person, however: > - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds like sailing to me * ), and > - is in good contact with a large terminal, > > I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. > > > > With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the table is above the threshold for: > "Can't let go of conductor" > and somewhere between: > "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" > > and > > "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly fatal - Fatal if continued" > > By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 seconds. > > > With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull you off the terminal. > > If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with good safeguards, there may be a problem. > > Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am trying to make.) > > On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. > > I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. > > Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper precautions. > > Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally un-complementary comments. > > Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: j.hess@... > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > > > Peace, > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the plates inside. > > > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to confuse > > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, prominent > > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium surrounding, > > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. :) ] > > > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not to > > > > worried about that either. > > > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a pair > > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, although > > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more worried > > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or poisoning > > > > me. > > > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to bow > > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that doesn't > > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > > future. ;) > > > > > > Ben > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26970|26907|2011-11-15 00:37:23|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Matt True there can easily be enough hydrogen to cause an explosion. But batteries should be vented, ideally to the outside. ABYC recommendation as well. Forgetting electric propulsion, many boats are carrying 800 AH or more of batteries around. You don''t hear of explosions except very rarely though. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > From Wikipedia... > The magnitude of the electrical charge of one mole of elementary charges > .... is equal to 96485.3399 coulombs. > > An Ampere is one Coulomb per second. > > A mole of hydrogen (H2) is 22.4 liters, so, for each Amp-second (Coulomb), > perhaps 0.116cc of hydrogen is produced per cell, or about 0.7cc / 12 Volt > battery. If one remembers lighting off a 5mL / cc test-tube of hydrogen in > high school, it was quite a little pop -- about 1/6 of that, per > amp-second, per 12V battery. At 50 Amperes (shore power?) charging of a 48 > V system, how much hydrogen is produced in 1 minute? One produces about > 8.35 liters of hydrogen... with combines in a perfectly explosive mixture > with 21 liters of air.... a bit more of a problem. But hydrogen is > flammable from about 4% to 75% concentration in air.... 4% mixes with 210 > liters of air. That is like a Costco sized tote, or an entire bilge if the > cover fits closely / there is little circulation. Divide everything by 10 > and one has the charge rate for a good solar array 5 Amps / 48 V = 250 > Watts. > > In any case, any sort of active venting of dozens of cubic feet per minute > can overwhelm these. Yes, hydrogen rises, but without a wind and an open > hatch, is it getting out of the boat that fast enough ? In a stagnant air > situation, for even a few minutes at 50 Amperes or a good part of an hour > at 5 Amperes, that is a lot of hydrogen. Would that be enough in a closed > cabin in still air? > > And if one has the batteries inside drip-cover cases to protect them, like > others suggested, is it possible, after a minute, all of the drip cases > around the batteries are full of hydrogen ? > > Shutting off the charging system when the boat is sealed up might be a > start. Or provide a little flow-through to keep concentrations down. Most > boats would probably leak enough air most of the time. But, it would only > take a handful of weatherstripping and a still day to create a problem. > > Matt > > --------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:20:22 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It woud take a sealed battery room to contain enough concentration of > hydrogen to get an explosion. Not much chance of that happening in a > relatively more open battery box, where hydrogen is able to rise. . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. > > > > > > Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. > > > > > > Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own > (fire, explosion). > > > > > > Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are > so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in > experiences reported. > > > > > > What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not > going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. > > > > > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to > attack): > > > > > > A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks > for them. > > > http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf > > > > > > "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in > > > the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I > read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. > > > http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 > > > > http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 > > > > > > > > > American Bureau of Shipping Rules: > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide > > > > > > > > > Phsyiology of Electric Shock > > > http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm > > > > > > > > > An exerpt from this page: > > > "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can > be determined by the formula > > > T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is > > > the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the > > > person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." > > > > > > I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 > Ohms on a person, however: > > > - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt > water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are > normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds > like sailing to me * ), and > > > - is in good contact with a large terminal, > > > > > > I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the > table is above the threshold for: > > > "Can't let go of conductor" > > > and somewhere between: > > > "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" > > > > > > and > > > > > > "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly > fatal - Fatal if continued" > > > > > > By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 > seconds. > > > > > > > > > With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you > off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer > until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. > Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students > working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. > Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull > you off the terminal. > > > > > > If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on > flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am > imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" > conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all > the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with > good safeguards, there may be a problem. > > > > > > Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) > Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt > water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the > same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a > little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER > -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am > trying to make.) > > > > > > On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. > Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE > calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something > between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild > shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 > Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... > but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. > > > > > > I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water > because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the > time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and > hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure > milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in > the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. > > > > > > Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I > am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not > at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to > sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS > and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper > precautions. > > > > > > Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally > un-complementary comments. > > > > > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: j.hess@... > > > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > > > > > > > > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section > entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the > plates inside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > > > > > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > > > > > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to > confuse > > > > > > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > > > > > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > > > > > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > > > > > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > > > > > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > > > > > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > > > > > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > > > > > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, > prominent > > > > > > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium > surrounding, > > > > > > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > > > > > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. > :) ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > > > > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > > > > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > > > > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not > to > > > > > > > > worried about that either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a > pair > > > > > > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > > > > > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > > > > > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, > although > > > > > > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > > > > > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > > > > > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > > > > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more > worried > > > > > > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > > > > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > > > > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > > > > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or > poisoning > > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to > bow > > > > > > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > > > > > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that > doesn't > > > > > > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > > > > > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > > > > > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > > > > > > future. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26971|26907|2011-11-15 02:36:41|Roy|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Excuse me ... "many boats are carrying 800 AH" what's  ...."800 AH" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26972|26907|2011-11-15 07:49:59|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, so until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically large the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration. If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in the boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house batteries -- a primary and secondary. There are a lot of permutations possible. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: DeafMessianic@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:36:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion Excuse me ... "many boats are carrying 800 AH" what's ...."800 AH" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26973|26907|2011-11-15 07:58:04|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Absolutely. For every hazard, there are procedures, recommendations, guidelines and precautions. Where on my farm I might put 9 golf-cart batteries in a drafty shed, and charge them off solar, and not worry about venting, on a boat, there is more to keep in mind. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brianstannard@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:37:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion Matt True there can easily be enough hydrogen to cause an explosion. But batteries should be vented, ideally to the outside. ABYC recommendation as well. Forgetting electric propulsion, many boats are carrying 800 AH or more of batteries around. You don''t hear of explosions except very rarely though. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > From Wikipedia... > The magnitude of the electrical charge of one mole of elementary charges > .... is equal to 96485.3399 coulombs. > > An Ampere is one Coulomb per second. > > A mole of hydrogen (H2) is 22.4 liters, so, for each Amp-second (Coulomb), > perhaps 0.116cc of hydrogen is produced per cell, or about 0.7cc / 12 Volt > battery. If one remembers lighting off a 5mL / cc test-tube of hydrogen in > high school, it was quite a little pop -- about 1/6 of that, per > amp-second, per 12V battery. At 50 Amperes (shore power?) charging of a 48 > V system, how much hydrogen is produced in 1 minute? One produces about > 8.35 liters of hydrogen... with combines in a perfectly explosive mixture > with 21 liters of air.... a bit more of a problem. But hydrogen is > flammable from about 4% to 75% concentration in air.... 4% mixes with 210 > liters of air. That is like a Costco sized tote, or an entire bilge if the > cover fits closely / there is little circulation. Divide everything by 10 > and one has the charge rate for a good solar array 5 Amps / 48 V = 250 > Watts. > > In any case, any sort of active venting of dozens of cubic feet per minute > can overwhelm these. Yes, hydrogen rises, but without a wind and an open > hatch, is it getting out of the boat that fast enough ? In a stagnant air > situation, for even a few minutes at 50 Amperes or a good part of an hour > at 5 Amperes, that is a lot of hydrogen. Would that be enough in a closed > cabin in still air? > > And if one has the batteries inside drip-cover cases to protect them, like > others suggested, is it possible, after a minute, all of the drip cases > around the batteries are full of hydrogen ? > > Shutting off the charging system when the boat is sealed up might be a > start. Or provide a little flow-through to keep concentrations down. Most > boats would probably leak enough air most of the time. But, it would only > take a handful of weatherstripping and a still day to create a problem. > > Matt > > --------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:20:22 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It woud take a sealed battery room to contain enough concentration of > hydrogen to get an explosion. Not much chance of that happening in a > relatively more open battery box, where hydrogen is able to rise. . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hydrogen gas can explode when combined with air. > > > > > > Chlorine gas can be produced by the electrolysis of seawater. > > > > > > Hydrogen and chlorine experience an exothermic reaction of their own > (fire, explosion). > > > > > > Sealed batteries potentially have fewer issues. Someone said there are > so many type of batteries, this might contribute to the differences in > experiences reported. > > > > > > What caused Denis' battery to explode -- I don't know, but I am not > going to say it did not happen if he says he saw it with his own eyes. > > > > > > Some references not written by anyone here (more people for Ben to > attack): > > > > > > A case of a battery explosion -- there are plenty of these if one looks > for them. > > > http://www.iadc.org/alerts/2005_Alerts/sa%2005-05.pdf > > > > > > "In 1996, 18-year-old Derek Zavitz from Ontario died in an explosion in > > > the battery room of the Concordia off the north coast of Australia." I > read he was killed when the door to the battery room flew open and hit him. > > > http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=4229778 > > > > http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=d1b06ffa-eea4-4f11-a9fc-c818de004926&p=2 > > > > > > > > > American Bureau of Shipping Rules: > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/63_FacilitiesonOffshoreInstallations/Pub63_FOI_Guide > > > > > > > > > Phsyiology of Electric Shock > > > http://www.mpoweruk.com/shock.htm > > > > > > > > > An exerpt from this page: > > > "According to the IEEE Std. 80, the maximum safe duration of a shock can > be determined by the formula > > > T = 0.116/(E/R), where T is > > > the time in seconds, E is the voltage and R, the resistance of the > > > person (assumed to be 1000 Ohms)." > > > > > > I have never measured a resistance with a meter of as little as 1000 > Ohms on a person, however: > > > - if the person is soaked in saltwater, and has been soaked in salt > water for a while so their normally dry skin and callouses, which are > normally a high resistance, are thoroughly softened and soaked ( * sounds > like sailing to me * ), and > > > - is in good contact with a large terminal, > > > > > > I will not rule out 1000 Ohms as impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > With E = 50 Volts, R=1000 Ohms that is approximately 50mA, which by the > table is above the threshold for: > > > "Can't let go of conductor" > > > and somewhere between: > > > "Can't breathe. Paralysis of the chest muscles, Possibly Fatal" > > > > > > and > > > > > > "Intense pain, Impaired breathing, Ventricular fibrillation, Possibly > fatal - Fatal if continued" > > > > > > By the IEEE formula, the maximum safe duration would be just over 2 > seconds. > > > > > > > > > With DC voltages, there is no pulsation that helps muscles throw you > off, so, "Can't let go of conductor" is likely to last a little longer > until you find a non-seized muscle group to wrench your body away. > Normally, I would suggest falling down, it is what I suggested to students > working at a bench, but, in a boat, the batteries are probably down. > Certainly 2 seconds might easily happen even with someone there to pull > you off the terminal. > > > > > > If one has to root around in their battery compartment on a nice day, on > flat seas, with all the time in the world, that is one thing. I am > imagining "does not work" might happen in "poor and/or deteriorating" > conditions when there is a need to do something and one does not have all > the time in the world. This is where, if one has not planned ahead, with > good safeguards, there may be a problem. > > > > > > Using his 4 1/2 digit meter (which means it is very good, and precise) > Ben measured (and then for some reason dismissed) 2mA flowing through salt > water from a 12V battery. (12V/2milliAmps = 6,000 Ohms, which is not the > same as Ben measured on resistance, 150,000 Ohms....could not possibly be a > little non-linearity there, no, the 2mA was a mistake, somehow. BAD METER > -- how dare you provide a measurement that contradicts the point I am > trying to make.) > > > > > > On the chart, 2mA reads as something between "Threshold of feeling. > Tingling sensation" and "Maximum harmless current". If we use the IEEE > calculation, assuming a 1000 Ohm resistance for a person, we get something > between 12 and 14 mA which is right in the middle of the range for "Mild > shock, Start of muscular contraction. No loss of muscular control". So 12 > Volt batteries are probably pretty safe with respect to electric shocks... > but 2, 3, 4, 8 in series, is different. > > > > > > I have not taken Ben's challenge to try the conductivity of salt water > because, I do not have ready access to ocean water, and have not had the > time to weigh out the right chemicals to make artificial salt water, and > hook up an adjustable DC power source. I expect, like Ben, to measure > milliAmps at 12 Volts, and enough milliAmps at higher voltages to land in > the hazardous categories of the physiological effects table. > > > > > > Again, in a dry place, that is not moving, not tossing me around while I > am trying not to touch always-live terminals, and I am not soaking wet, not > at the bottom of a hole likely to collect salt water, that I do not have to > sleep in, I would not be so concerned about a bank of batteries. The ABS > and IEEE seem pretty clear, there is cause for caution, and proper > precautions. > > > > > > Or we could just take Ben's assurances and intentionally > un-complementary comments. > > > > > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: j.hess@... > > > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben, > > > > > > You're being rather mean-spirited. It doesn't suit you well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen gas, which can explode. > > > > > > > > > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_battery, the section > entitled RISK OF EXPLOSION. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you owe Denis an apology. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe when it fell it impacted the case and shorted some of the > plates inside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure - anything could happen. But shorting a pair of plates - or even > > > > > > > all of them at once - wouldn't cause an explosion: there's no explosive > > > > > > > medium there. Acid can be _dangerous_, but it's important not to > confuse > > > > > > > that with "explosive". Can a battery overheat? Sure. Can it melt? > > > > > > > Possible. Can it build up enough pressure to vent the acid with some > > > > > > > force if it cracks? Also possible - but even more unlikely (AIUI, > > > > > > > battery manufacturers have spent the last couple of decades redesigning > > > > > > > battery cases to prevent exactly that.) These are all reasons to treat > > > > > > > batteries with *caution* - just like dealing with sharp knives, hot > > > > > > > stoves, politicians' statements, etc. - but there's no reason for fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If batteries were as prone to explode as our own lovable "I'VE LOST MY > > > > > > > CAPS LOCK KEY!!!!!" Denis [1], there'd be a whole lot of loud, > prominent > > > > > > > lawsuits by now... but, again - it's a non-explosive medium > surrounding, > > > > > > > and surrounded by, a whole lot of passive materials (lead and thick > > > > > > > plastic.) How do you make lead explode? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ Pause while our resident chemists eagerly point out lead azide, etc. > :) ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 12volts I don't think that seawater is a very good conductive path > > > > > > > > for large amounts of current..fresh water even less. > > > > > > > > sea water getting into a flooded battery and producing poison gas > > > > > > > > would be more of a concern to me. However since I have AGM's im not > to > > > > > > > > worried about that either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've made chlorine gas while I was in boarding school by sticking a > pair > > > > > > > of AC leads into a glass of water saturated with salt - this AWESOME > > > > > > > sharp-smelling white cloud came out! - but that was at 220VAC (this was > > > > > > > in Russia), and a couple of minutes of it didn't poison anyone, > although > > > > > > > it made the room smell like bleach for a bit. 12VDC? It'll fizz a bit, > > > > > > > that's all. As for seawater... good question. Tell you what - since I > > > > > > > have a few minutes, here's a bit of entertainment for everyone: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://okopnik.com/origami/killer_chlorine.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [grin] Nothing quite like diving in and finding out, is there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Batteries have been used in boats for many years with few explosions > > > > > > > > or people dieing from chlorine poisoning. I would be much more > worried > > > > > > > > about my propane system leaking into the bilge and blowing me up or > > > > > > > > having a fuel leak and starting a fire in the engine compartment if > > > > > > > > the fuel was somehow ignited. Statistically I think those to things > > > > > > > > are a much higher likelihood than my batteries blowing up or > poisoning > > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop it, Scott! You're being *sensible*. How do you expect people to > bow > > > > > > > down and worship you if you keep on being _logical?_... oh, right - > > > > > > > you're not into that. Never mind, then. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] That, Denis, is an example of what we call "irony" (no, that > doesn't > > > > > > > mean "kinda like iron".) If this thread goes on - which I doubt, I'm > > > > > > > about to get quite busy - I'll demonstrate sarcasm, and perhaps even > > > > > > > ridicule. Just for your education, so you don't confuse them in the > > > > > > > future. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26974|26907|2011-11-15 08:44:51|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|A lot of batteries. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Roy wrote: > ** > > > Excuse me ... "many boats are carrying 800 AH" > > what's ...."800 AH" > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26975|26907|2011-11-15 14:52:54|scott|Re: Electric Propulsion|I'm on the dubious side as to a battery having enough hydrogen built up internally to cause an explosion of any magnitude inside the battery. If you have a sealed battery box that the hydrogen could build up in then I could see having a bit of a bang if you ignited it. Your only going to get that realistically from the charging process. If your batteries are under water and producing hydrogen then most likely your not worried about it exploding the hydrogen. However something that everyone seems to be ignoring is that batteries contain a lot of energy in them that you can release in such a way that it looks as if it is exploding.. well actually it is exploding but has nothing to do with hydrogen. If you short a battery out internally and it dumps all its energy into that short you get a huge amount of heat that can turn the battery acid (which is mostly water) into steam in a fraction of a second. You can get this by shorting out the terminals on the battery if you do it with something big enough that it doesn't vaporise right away. The vast majority of all battery "explosions" or fires I have ever heard of is from internal shorts or external shorts of the batteries causing a huge heat release because of the amount of current flowing. Think light bulb filament. Newer lithium chemistry batteries have some runaway chemical reactions that can happen also.. but that's a bit outside the lead acid battery discussion. Scott| 26976|26907|2011-11-15 15:09:14|scott|Re: Electric Propulsion|> > You will get chlorine gas if the water is salt. > > You've said so before. Repeating it does not make it any more true. I > note that you still don't have any proof, though. You should think > really hard about why that might be. Ben, though I would agree that your not creating a significant amount of chlorine this way you do get chlorine from a electric current run through salt water. http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/split_h2o.html just one of a few sites showing this. Personally for 12 volt battery systems I think this is a moot point other than the normal ventilation recommended to move any hydrogen produced during charging of a flooded battery out of the battery compartment and boat. scott| 26977|26820|2011-11-15 16:12:18|martin demers|Re: bad pirate pilot house height|Hi Tom, by looking at the picture of your boat, I thought it would be closer to mine (around 10 in.) I want to install front pilothouse windows, it does not give me much place for them and I dont want to raise the pilothouse height for now...more important work to do before. I' am also planning for a hard dodger on my boat. maybe an aluminium cabin top later... I will have to find a way to fix it to steel deck. thanks, Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: badpirate@... Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:00:06 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: bad pirate pilot house height Hi Martin, the cabin top is 15 inches above deck and has a 6 inch camber, the pilothouse is 13 inches above the cabin. I'm planning on a hard dodger it'll be a couple feet above the pilot house to permit standing room in the cockpit. thanx for the interest, Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Bad pirate, > > Nice pictures of your boat! > I would like to know how high is your pilothouse compare to the cabin top? > > thanks, Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26978|26907|2011-11-15 20:02:39|Darren Bos|Re: Electric Propulsion|Scott You can definitely get enough hydrogen around/inside a charging battery to cause an explosion (no battery box or other space needed to contain gas). It may be that there is just enough hydrogen gas for an explosion to cause an internal short in the plates which does the rest, but I assure you the result is instantaneous and makes a big bang. I have witnessed a single 12V lead acid battery being charged in the open (that is the front hitch of an RV trailer with no battery box) explode when one of the charging clamps was adjusted without turning off the charger (yes that is a bad idea). Anyway, the battery was attached to the trailer with standard case clamps, the explosion was strong enough to shower the person in the face with acid (doctor said contact lenses saved his eyesight as pitting around the periphery of the lenses was severe), the explosion also sent more than half the battery case flying where it ricocheted off a neighbors house and kept going (maybe a total flight distance of 100 to 200'). I treat every lead acid battery as if it has been charging, I make sure there is no reason for the leads to spark when I remove them and I look away when I do so. I have also been known to position myself such that flying pieces of casing would not contact my skull. This may make me appear a little unusual while doing battery maintenance. I can live with that. I think sealed batteries (of various chemistries) are one of the best inventions ever (although I still have a few traditionally vented lead acid batteries around). Darren At 11:52 AM 15/11/2011, you wrote: > > >I'm on the dubious side as to a battery having >enough hydrogen built up internally to cause an >explosion of any magnitude inside the battery. >If you have a sealed battery box that the >hydrogen could build up in then I could see >having a bit of a bang if you ignited it. Your >only going to get that realistically from the >charging process. If your batteries are under >water and producing hydrogen then most likely >your not worried about it exploding the hydrogen. > >However something that everyone seems to be >ignoring is that batteries contain a lot of >energy in them that you can release in such a >way that it looks as if it is exploding.. well >actually it is exploding but has nothing to do >with hydrogen. If you short a battery out >internally and it dumps all its energy into that >short you get a huge amount of heat that can >turn the battery acid (which is mostly water) >into steam in a fraction of a second. You can >get this by shorting out the terminals on the >battery if you do it with something big enough >that it doesn't vaporise right away. > >The vast majority of all battery "explosions" or >fires I have ever heard of is from internal >shorts or external shorts of the batteries >causing a huge heat release because of the >amount of current flowing. Think light bulb >filament. Newer lithium chemistry batteries have >some runaway chemical reactions that can happen >also.. but that's a bit outside the lead acid battery discussion. > >Scott > > | 26979|26907|2011-11-15 20:38:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: Electric Propulsion|On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:08:55PM -0000, scott wrote: > > Ben, > though I would agree that your not creating a significant amount of > chlorine this way you do get chlorine from a electric current run > through salt water. > > http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/split_h2o.html > just one of a few sites showing this. As I recall, the original discussion was about clouds of chlorine large and toxic enough to fill your boat and make you choke and jump off. In the above experiment - which uses a battery that's not significantly different in voltage from the one I was using - there's only enough to create some tiny bubbles at the terminal. Pretty much puts paid to the whole "clouds of chlorine" concept, doesn't it? I'm not saying "you can't possibly come to any harm around a lead-acid battery." I _am_ saying that some people here have a number of extreme misconceptions about those dangers, and that those misconceptions are themselves quite dangerous. I do note that the bit about chlorine has been quietly dropped, without anything like a single admission of anyone having been wrong. The ground has now been shifted to hydrogen-based explosions, which have no connection to the original scenario (i.e., salt water flooding the batteries or batteries being dropped) and which A) require a prolonged period of charging *and* B) a source of ignition. Not saying that you're doing that, by the way, but - neat bit of ground-shifting, huh? 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| 26980|26907|2011-11-15 20:44:42|Roy|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|OK, thanks ... --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM 800 Ampere-hours of capacity.    It is a measure of the total current-supplying capacity of the batteries.  It omits the voltage, so until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically large the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen produced.   Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration.  If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in hours.   One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in the boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house batteries -- a primary and secondary.  There are a lot of permutations possible.  Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26981|26981|2011-11-16 08:35:30|GP|Containers at sea|Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat construction? ...| 26982|26981|2011-11-16 10:29:38|chris123|Re: Containers at sea|Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26983|26981|2011-11-16 10:54:29|Norm Moore|Re: Containers at sea|You'll probably get a better, more detailed answer from one of the cruising forums, but briefly what I found is that insurance for blue water cruising is extremely expensive - prohibitively so. Many cruisers just get PL and PD while in ports and inland waters where shipping containers aren't typical hazards. Those that are well heeled get more insurance. All the insurance in the world won't help you if your boat breaks apart when you hit a container and sinks out from under you which is one reason a steel hull is better than insurance. Norm Moore ________________________________ From: chris123 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 7:29:36 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26984|26981|2011-11-16 10:58:39|Matt Malone|Re: Containers at sea|I think the number of sailboats that hit a container at sea will always be low in comparison to the number of insured sailboats, so, the marginal difference in a steel boat, spread over the probabilities, would result in a tiny change in the cost of insurance vs. sinking and replacing an orgami. I think what is probably of more concern to insurance companies with a blue-water-capable boat is a collision where the sailboat puts a hole in something fragile and really expensive and the expensive thing requires a huge effort to save it from sinking, and huge effort to replace its custom-carpentered wood interior, top of the line systems... And that is before considering injuries and casualities. After all, any boat that can hit a log at hull speed and have no problem at all is likely to make a real impression on a big fibreglass coastal cruiser, and the target fibreglass boat will absorb all the impact damage. I remember reading an article where someone had built a beautiful steel boat, and painted it with so much epoxy paint they said they had a steel-cored epoxy boat. They also mentioned their fear of sinking another boat as one of their major concerns when purchasing insurance. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: chris.herrnberger@... Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26985|26981|2011-11-16 11:22:21|Ben Okopnik|Re: Containers at sea|On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:29:36AM -0500, chris123 wrote: > Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and > insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending > the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Rather hard to find, in my experience - which means that haulouts are becoming somewhat of a problem. Most insurance companies don't even do steel; as one agent told me, "so few people have steel boats that nobody even bothers carrying that line [of insurance]." Personally, I never felt that I _needed_ insurance while sailing a steel boat. As to haul-outs, I usually just look around for someone who does fishing boats and deal with them rather than the "yachty" marinas that require you to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'. 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| 26986|26907|2011-11-16 12:45:47|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|I was referring to house banks that are mostly 12 volts, 24 volts sometimes. 800 AH or more @ 12 volts for a house bank is very common. 8 golf carts in series/parallel is about 900 AH @ 12 volts. Not sure exactly what you are referring to when you mention isolators. A large house bank is more efficient than 2 smaller banks of the same size. Multiple house banks are not seen often any more for this reason. All banks should be fused of course. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Roy wrote: > ** > > > OK, thanks ... > > --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM > > 800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total > current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, so > until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically large > the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen > produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration. > If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them > together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in > hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt > batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in the > boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house > batteries -- a primary and secondary. > > There are a lot of permutations possible. > > Matt > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26987|26907|2011-11-16 13:05:48|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|Isolators prevent current flowing from one battery or bank to another. There are semiconductor devices, commonly sold so that so that one can charge two batteries in a car/camper/boat without directly connecting the batteries to each other. http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/276723.gif Is one example circuit diagram for a particular isolator, however, I have seem diagrams with different geometries. If one connects two batteries in parallel with no isolator, then small temperature differences between the batteries can cause one battery to have a slightly different voltage than the other, current will flow from one battery to the other. Charging is not perfectly efficient, and over time, current will flow back the other way, and both batteries can discharge themselves faster than if they were isolated. Since there is charging of the battery that current flows to, the process is not a run-away divergence and explosion, that I know of, it just appears to be accelerated self-discharge. Also, an isolator prevents house uses of current from draining the engine starting battery. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brianstannard@... > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:45:43 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > I was referring to house banks that are mostly 12 volts, 24 volts > sometimes. 800 AH or more @ 12 volts for a house bank is very common. 8 > golf carts in series/parallel is about 900 AH @ 12 volts. Not sure exactly > what you are referring to when you mention isolators. > > A large house bank is more efficient than 2 smaller banks of the same size. > Multiple house banks are not seen often any more for this reason. All banks > should be fused of course. > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Roy wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > OK, thanks ... > > > > --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > From: Matt Malone > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM > > > > 800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total > > current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, so > > until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically large > > the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen > > produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration. > > If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them > > together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in > > hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt > > batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in the > > boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house > > batteries -- a primary and secondary. > > > > There are a lot of permutations possible. > > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Brian > > > [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]| 26988|26981|2011-11-16 13:16:26|akenai@yahoo.com|Re: Containers at sea|Did you forget about japans earthquake Sent from my ACS Android -----Original message----- From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 15:58:42 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Containers at sea I think the number of sailboats that hit a container at sea will always be low in comparison to the number of insured sailboats, so, the marginal difference in a steel boat, spread over the probabilities, would result in a tiny change in the cost of insurance vs. sinking and replacing an orgami. I think what is probably of more concern to insurance companies with a blue-water-capable boat is a collision where the sailboat puts a hole in something fragile and really expensive and the expensive thing requires a huge effort to save it from sinking, and huge effort to replace its custom-carpentered wood interior, top of the line systems... And that is before considering injuries and casualities. After all, any boat that can hit a log at hull speed and have no problem at all is likely to make a real impression on a big fibreglass coastal cruiser, and the target fibreglass boat will absorb all the impact damage. I remember reading an article where someone had built a beautiful steel boat, and painted it with so much epoxy paint they said they had a steel-cored epoxy boat. They also mentioned their fear of sinking another boat as one of their major concerns when purchasing insurance. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: chris.herrnberger@... Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [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] | 26989|26907|2011-11-16 13:19:52|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|I see what you mean. They aren't used much anymore either. There is a voltage drop through them and unless you have a battery sensing alternator that increases the output voltage of the alt to compensate the batteries never get a full charge. I removed one from a boat last week and replaced it with an Echo Charge which is very effective at charging the start/auxiliary battery and charges it fully. ACR's work as well. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > ** > > > > > Isolators prevent current flowing from one battery or bank to another. > There are semiconductor devices, commonly sold so that so that one can > charge two batteries in a car/camper/boat without directly connecting the > batteries to each other. > > http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/276723.gif > > Is one example circuit diagram for a particular isolator, however, I have > seem diagrams with different geometries. > > If one connects two batteries in parallel with no isolator, then small > temperature differences between the batteries can cause one battery to have > a slightly different voltage than the other, current will flow from one > battery to the other. Charging is not perfectly efficient, and over time, > current will flow back the other way, and both batteries can discharge > themselves faster than if they were isolated. Since there is charging of > the battery that current flows to, the process is not a run-away divergence > and explosion, that I know of, it just appears to be accelerated > self-discharge. > > Also, an isolator prevents house uses of current from draining the engine > starting battery. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brianstannard@... > > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:45:43 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > I was referring to house banks that are mostly 12 volts, 24 volts > > sometimes. 800 AH or more @ 12 volts for a house bank is very common. 8 > > golf carts in series/parallel is about 900 AH @ 12 volts. Not sure > exactly > > what you are referring to when you mention isolators. > > > > A large house bank is more efficient than 2 smaller banks of the same > size. > > Multiple house banks are not seen often any more for this reason. All > banks > > should be fused of course. > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Roy wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > OK, thanks ... > > > > > > --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM > > > > > > 800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total > > > current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, so > > > until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically > large > > > the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen > > > produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration. > > > If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them > > > together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in > > > hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt > > > batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in > the > > > boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house > > > batteries -- a primary and secondary. > > > > > > There are a lot of permutations possible. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Brian > > > > > > > [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] > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26990|26907|2011-11-16 14:26:47|Matt Malone|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|A cool gadget, however, one of the many things I would call an isolator. Yes, the dumb ones drop more voltage than the more complex ones. You mention a battery voltage sensing alternator... I think that is what is implied by the diagram I included -- the "S" connector on the alternator to battery 1 ? What is an ACR in this meaning ? Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brianstannard@... > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:19:51 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > I see what you mean. They aren't used much anymore either. There is a > voltage drop through them and unless you have a battery sensing alternator > that increases the output voltage of the alt to compensate the batteries > never get a full charge. I removed one from a boat last week and replaced > it with an Echo Charge which is very effective at charging the > start/auxiliary battery and charges it fully. ACR's work as well. > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > Isolators prevent current flowing from one battery or bank to another. > > There are semiconductor devices, commonly sold so that so that one can > > charge two batteries in a car/camper/boat without directly connecting the > > batteries to each other. > > > > http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/276723.gif > > > > Is one example circuit diagram for a particular isolator, however, I have > > seem diagrams with different geometries. > > > > If one connects two batteries in parallel with no isolator, then small > > temperature differences between the batteries can cause one battery to have > > a slightly different voltage than the other, current will flow from one > > battery to the other. Charging is not perfectly efficient, and over time, > > current will flow back the other way, and both batteries can discharge > > themselves faster than if they were isolated. Since there is charging of > > the battery that current flows to, the process is not a run-away divergence > > and explosion, that I know of, it just appears to be accelerated > > self-discharge. > > > > Also, an isolator prevents house uses of current from draining the engine > > starting battery. > > > > Matt > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brianstannard@... > > > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:45:43 -0800 > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > I was referring to house banks that are mostly 12 volts, 24 volts > > > sometimes. 800 AH or more @ 12 volts for a house bank is very common. 8 > > > golf carts in series/parallel is about 900 AH @ 12 volts. Not sure > > exactly > > > what you are referring to when you mention isolators. > > > > > > A large house bank is more efficient than 2 smaller banks of the same > > size. > > > Multiple house banks are not seen often any more for this reason. All > > banks > > > should be fused of course. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Roy wrote: > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, thanks ... > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM > > > > > > > > 800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total > > > > current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, so > > > > until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how physically > > large > > > > the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen > > > > produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge duration. > > > > If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add them > > > > together and divide them into the capacity to get expected run-time in > > > > hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt > > > > batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system in > > the > > > > boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house > > > > batteries -- a primary and secondary. > > > > > > > > There are a lot of permutations possible. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Brian > > > [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]| 26991|26907|2011-11-16 14:47:06|Brian Stannard|Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion|An ACR senses a charge voltage and parallels the banks, separating them when the voltage drops. Called a VSR in the UK. I did not see the diagram. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > ** > > > > > A cool gadget, however, one of the many things I would call an isolator. > Yes, the dumb ones drop more voltage than the more complex ones. > > You mention a battery voltage sensing alternator... I think that is what > is implied by the diagram I included -- the "S" connector on the alternator > to battery 1 ? > > What is an ACR in this meaning ? > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brianstannard@... > > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:19:51 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > I see what you mean. They aren't used much anymore either. There is a > > voltage drop through them and unless you have a battery sensing > alternator > > that increases the output voltage of the alt to compensate the batteries > > never get a full charge. I removed one from a boat last week and replaced > > it with an Echo Charge which is very effective at charging the > > start/auxiliary battery and charges it fully. ACR's work as well. > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Matt Malone >wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isolators prevent current flowing from one battery or bank to another. > > > There are semiconductor devices, commonly sold so that so that one can > > > charge two batteries in a car/camper/boat without directly connecting > the > > > batteries to each other. > > > > > > http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/276723.gif > > > > > > Is one example circuit diagram for a particular isolator, however, I > have > > > seem diagrams with different geometries. > > > > > > If one connects two batteries in parallel with no isolator, then small > > > temperature differences between the batteries can cause one battery to > have > > > a slightly different voltage than the other, current will flow from one > > > battery to the other. Charging is not perfectly efficient, and over > time, > > > current will flow back the other way, and both batteries can discharge > > > themselves faster than if they were isolated. Since there is charging > of > > > the battery that current flows to, the process is not a run-away > divergence > > > and explosion, that I know of, it just appears to be accelerated > > > self-discharge. > > > > > > Also, an isolator prevents house uses of current from draining the > engine > > > starting battery. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brianstannard@... > > > > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:45:43 -0800 > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > > > > > > > I was referring to house banks that are mostly 12 volts, 24 volts > > > > sometimes. 800 AH or more @ 12 volts for a house bank is very > common. 8 > > > > golf carts in series/parallel is about 900 AH @ 12 volts. Not sure > > > exactly > > > > what you are referring to when you mention isolators. > > > > > > > > A large house bank is more efficient than 2 smaller banks of the same > > > size. > > > > Multiple house banks are not seen often any more for this reason. All > > > banks > > > > should be fused of course. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Roy > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, thanks ... > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Lead-Acid battery explosion > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 7:49 AM > > > > > > > > > > 800 Ampere-hours of capacity. It is a measure of the total > > > > > current-supplying capacity of the batteries. It omits the voltage, > so > > > > > until one knows the voltage, one does not have an idea how > physically > > > large > > > > > the batteries are, or the total energy, or the hydrogen > > > > > produced. Ampere-hours does however provide an idea discharge > duration. > > > > > If one knows the Ampere draws of all the appliances, one can add > them > > > > > together and divide them into the capacity to get expected > run-time in > > > > > hours. One might carry 800 Ampere hours by having several 12 Volt > > > > > batteries in parallel with isolators so that one has a 12 V system > in > > > the > > > > > boat and for instance a starting battery and two (very large) house > > > > > batteries -- a primary and secondary. > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of permutations possible. > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Brian > > > > > > [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] > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26992|26981|2011-11-16 15:16:07|brentswain38|Re: Containers at sea|I heard recently on CBC Radio that the first debris from the japan earthquake, including steel fishboats is about to start hitting the BC coast. Differences in wndage is spreading the debris out over thousands of miles, and will continue to do so until it covers the entire North Pacific. Expect the number of plastic boats sinking from colisions with such debris to incrase drastically over the next few years. That should increase demand for, and appreciation of steel boats. Got a plastic or wood boat? Sell it and go metal! Beat the rush. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai@..." wrote: > > Did you forget about japans earthquake > > Sent from my ACS Android > > -----Original message----- > From: Matt Malone > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 15:58:42 GMT+00:00 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > > > I think the number of sailboats that hit a container at sea will always be > low in comparison to the number of insured sailboats, so, the marginal > difference in a steel boat, spread over the probabilities, would result in a > tiny change in the cost of insurance vs. sinking and replacing an orgami. > I think what is probably of more concern to insurance companies with a > blue-water-capable boat is a collision where the sailboat puts a hole in > something fragile and really expensive and the expensive thing requires a > huge effort to save it from sinking, and huge effort to replace its > custom-carpentered wood interior, top of the line systems... And that is > before considering injuries and casualities. After all, any boat that can > hit a log at hull speed and have no problem at all is likely to make a real > impression on a big fibreglass coastal cruiser, and the target fibreglass > boat will absorb all the impact damage. > > I remember reading an article where someone had built a beautiful steel > boat, and painted it with so much epoxy paint they said they had a > steel-cored epoxy boat. They also mentioned their fear of sinking another > boat as one of their major concerns when purchasing insurance. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: chris.herrnberger@... > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and > > insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending > > the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. > > > > Kind regards > > > > /ch > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > > > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > > > > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > > > construction? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > [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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 26993|26981|2011-11-16 19:01:21|Roy|Re: Containers at sea|Again ... I'm learning ... It's interesting to see the "shipping containers" being a hazard, in real life ... I can imagine them being a hazard if they ever get to float around in waters, but I'd never would imagine for that to happen, except in very rare instances.  Is this that common? "PL and PD" ... I guess the first one is Personal Liability, and what's next one? I do agree that a steel hull is better than insurance, especially in middle of ocean! --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Norm Moore wrote: From: Norm Moore Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 10:54 AM   You'll probably get a better, more detailed answer from one of the cruising forums, but briefly what I found is that insurance for blue water cruising is extremely expensive - prohibitively so. Many cruisers just get PL and PD while in ports and inland waters where shipping containers aren't typical hazards. Those that are well heeled get more insurance. All the insurance in the world won't help you if your boat breaks apart when you hit a container and sinks out from under you which is one reason a steel hull is better than insurance. Norm Moore ________________________________ From: chris123 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 7:29:36 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [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] | 26994|26981|2011-11-16 19:22:28|Roy|Re: Containers at sea|You just answered my question I just posted .... One thing, that earthquake is an exception, and yes, it did cause a lot to be floating around presenting a danger ... but the shipping containers in nornal times ... are that much of a problem? I know I only need to smash into one before I got some problems ... but how much more of a problem this is, as compared to the pirates and crazies, for instance? --- On Wed, 11/16/11, akenai@... wrote: From: akenai@... Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Containers at sea To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 1:16 PM   Did you forget about japans earthquake Sent from my ACS Android -----Original message----- From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 15:58:42 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Containers at sea I think the number of sailboats that hit a container at sea will always be low in comparison to the number of insured sailboats, so, the marginal difference in a steel boat, spread over the probabilities, would result in a tiny change in the cost of insurance vs. sinking and replacing an orgami. I think what is probably of more concern to insurance companies with a blue-water-capable boat is a collision where the sailboat puts a hole in something fragile and really expensive and the expensive thing requires a huge effort to save it from sinking, and huge effort to replace its custom-carpentered wood interior, top of the line systems... And that is before considering injuries and casualities. After all, any boat that can hit a log at hull speed and have no problem at all is likely to make a real impression on a big fibreglass coastal cruiser, and the target fibreglass boat will absorb all the impact damage. I remember reading an article where someone had built a beautiful steel boat, and painted it with so much epoxy paint they said they had a steel-cored epoxy boat. They also mentioned their fear of sinking another boat as one of their major concerns when purchasing insurance. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: chris.herrnberger@... Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. Kind regards /ch On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > ** > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > construction? > > ... > [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] | 26995|26981|2011-11-16 19:36:09|Roy|Re: Containers at sea|I agree about the "plastic" boats ... but wood? pound for pound, it is a lot stronger than steel ... if built right, wood should do very well --- On Wed, 11/16/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Containers at sea To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 3:15 PM   I heard recently on CBC Radio that the first debris from the japan earthquake, including steel fishboats is about to start hitting the BC coast. Differences in wndage is spreading the debris out over thousands of miles, and will continue to do so until it covers the entire North Pacific. Expect the number of plastic boats sinking from colisions with such debris to incrase drastically over the next few years. That should increase demand for, and appreciation of steel boats. Got a plastic or wood boat? Sell it and go metal! Beat the rush. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai@..." wrote: > > Did you forget about japans earthquake > > Sent from my ACS Android > > -----Original message----- > From: Matt Malone > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 15:58:42 GMT+00:00 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > > > I think the number of sailboats that hit a container at sea will always be > low in comparison to the number of insured sailboats, so, the marginal > difference in a steel boat, spread over the probabilities, would result in a > tiny change in the cost of insurance vs. sinking and replacing an orgami. > I think what is probably of more concern to insurance companies with a > blue-water-capable boat is a collision where the sailboat puts a hole in > something fragile and really expensive and the expensive thing requires a > huge effort to save it from sinking, and huge effort to replace its > custom-carpentered wood interior, top of the line systems... And that is > before considering injuries and casualities. After all, any boat that can > hit a log at hull speed and have no problem at all is likely to make a real > impression on a big fibreglass coastal cruiser, and the target fibreglass > boat will absorb all the impact damage. > > I remember reading an article where someone had built a beautiful steel > boat, and painted it with so much epoxy paint they said they had a > steel-cored epoxy boat. They also mentioned their fear of sinking another > boat as one of their major concerns when purchasing insurance. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: chris.herrnberger@... > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and > > insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending > > the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. > > > > Kind regards > > > > /ch > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > > > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > > > > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > > > construction? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > [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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 26996|26981|2011-11-16 19:47:50|Barney Treadway|Re: Containers at sea|I wonder if salvage laws are applicable for containers. A hundred plasma tvs could fund a year of cruising! www.ecomshare.com Roy wrote: >Again ... I'm learning ... > >It's interesting to see the "shipping containers" being a hazard, in real life ... I can imagine them being a hazard if they ever get to float around in waters, but I'd never would imagine for that to happen, except in very rare instances.  Is this that common? > >"PL and PD" ... I guess the first one is Personal Liability, and what's next one? > >I do agree that a steel hull is better than insurance, especially in middle of ocean! > >--- On Wed, 11/16/11, Norm Moore wrote: > >From: Norm Moore >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 10:54 AM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > You'll probably get a better, more detailed answer from one of the cruising > >forums, but briefly what I found is that insurance for blue water cruising is > >extremely expensive - prohibitively so. Many cruisers just get PL and PD while > >in ports and inland waters where shipping containers aren't typical hazards. > >Those that are well heeled get more insurance. All the insurance in the world > >won't help you if your boat breaks apart when you hit a container and sinks out > >from under you which is one reason a steel hull is better than insurance. > > > >Norm Moore > > > >________________________________ > >From: chris123 > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 7:29:36 AM > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > > >Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and > >insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending > >the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. > > > >Kind regards > > > >/ch > > > >On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > > > >> ** > >> > >> > >> Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > >> sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > >> > >> Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > >> construction? > >> > >> ... > >> > > > >[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] > | 26997|26981|2011-11-16 20:26:25|Mark Hamill|Re: Containers at sea|There was a special on the Great Eye about Tsunami's awhile back and I may have heard this wrong but there are researchers trying to figure out how many rogue waves occur in the Pacific using satellite imaging. One reason is that (and this may be wrong) that 200 container ships have disappeared over the last 20 years. Whatever the figure it was an appalling number. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 26998|26981|2011-11-16 20:39:09|Ben Okopnik|Re: Containers at sea|On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 05:47:47PM -0700, Barney Treadway wrote: > I wonder if salvage laws are applicable for containers. A hundred > plasma tvs could fund a year of cruising! As I seem to recall, salvage as a legal term applies specifically to cargo, and to a vessel only in extreme cases, like complete abandonment (it's a term that's grossly misused by non-seamen, in any case.) If you were well out at sea, it would be a bit difficult to extract them yourself, assuming that they weren't already soaked... but, hey, you could always tie up to the container, radio some cargo ship in the area, and negotiate a split with them. Might also be nice if a Coast Guard or a Navy ship was nearby: a container full of plasma TVs is indeed a nice chunk of change. :) 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| 26999|26999|2011-11-16 20:47:37|chris123|Origami builds|Greets: Was wondering since this is the origami boat list...say you had a plan for steel boat. Is it possible to convert that plan into and origami style build hull. Sure would love to hear more stuff about boat building. -- /ch| 27000|26981|2011-11-16 21:16:31|Brian Stannard|Re: Containers at sea|They fall off of freighters in rough seas on a regular basis. Some will sink and some remain awash depending on their contents I guess. Google search images of "container ships in rough weather" and you will see how loaded they are as well as several disasters. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Roy wrote: > ** > > > Again ... I'm learning ... > > It's interesting to see the "shipping containers" being a hazard, in real > life ... I can imagine them being a hazard if they ever get to float around > in waters, but I'd never would imagine for that to happen, except in very > rare instances. Is this that common? > > "PL and PD" ... I guess the first one is Personal Liability, and what's > next one? > > I do agree that a steel hull is better than insurance, especially in > middle of ocean! > > --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Norm Moore wrote: > > From: Norm Moore > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 10:54 AM > > > > You'll probably get a better, more detailed answer from one of the > cruising > > forums, but briefly what I found is that insurance for blue water cruising > is > > extremely expensive - prohibitively so. Many cruisers just get PL and PD > while > > in ports and inland waters where shipping containers aren't typical > hazards. > > Those that are well heeled get more insurance. All the insurance in the > world > > won't help you if your boat breaks apart when you hit a container and > sinks out > > from under you which is one reason a steel hull is better than insurance. > > Norm Moore > > ________________________________ > > From: chris123 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, November 16, 2011 7:29:36 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Containers at sea > > Interesting point. What are the issues if any with steel boats and > > insurance in general.? FGRP boats in general are quite reasonable pending > > the policy options. New to the list so just wondering. > > Kind regards > > /ch > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 AM, GP wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Just perusing CruisersForum this morning. There were 2 posts about > > > sailboats hitting containers recently and sinking. > > > > > > Wonder if insurance companies will make some concession to steel boat > > > construction? > > > > > > ... > > > > > [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] > > > -- Cheers Brian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |