[bolger] Re: "cold casting keels" (was modern Light Schooner)
This sounds like a wing keel. If the wing is not too extreme it
might work. However, lead is a soft material and would be subject to
damage from being exposed like that. If it is part of a full keel it is
easy to bang back into shape with a ball peen hammer, but on winglets
it could be difficult.
I think I am going to do the keel the old fashioned way with heat,
and gloves, and respirators. Or, contract out.
D. jost
"Clyde S. Wisner" wrote:
> If top and bottom plates work well on a rudder(and they do), could you
> take a tall piece of "I" beam and cut the web to contour of bottom,
> add lead to side of web for more weight if nec? Clyde Wisner
>
> David Jost wrote:
>
>> Hmm,
>> Thinking a little further on this. The missing weight could be
>> externally attached in two halves of a small bulb on either side of
>> the
>> keel. They shouldn't be too hard to mold up. You could take a
>> piece of
>> channel iron and weld in a couple of short cross pieces to make up
>> a
>> mold. Then pour the lead in, cool, remove, and do it again. Then,
>> they
>> could be though bolted to each other. This sounds promising. Any
>> math
>> or physics majors out there willing to work the particulars out?
>>
>> David Jost wrote:
>>
>> > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>> > Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------
>> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
>> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
>>http://click.egroups.com/1/932/5/_/3457/_/948940158/
>>
>> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
>> --http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=bolger&m=1
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> eGroups.com Home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
David Jost wrote:
Hmm,
Thinking a little further on this. The missing weight could be
externally attached in two halves of a small bulb on either side of the
keel. They shouldn't be too hard to mold up. You could take a piece of
channel iron and weld in a couple of short cross pieces to make up a
mold. Then pour the lead in, cool, remove, and do it again. Then, they
could be though bolted to each other. This sounds promising. Any math
or physics majors out there willing to work the particulars out?
David Jost wrote:
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>
Encoding: 7bit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/932/5/_/3457/_/948940158/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
--http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=bolger&m=1
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Date sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:48:39 -0500
Send reply to:bolger@egroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: "cold casting keels" (was modern Light Schooner)
> So it comes out to the same as steel? (see air go out of my sails) :(I did this with my Micro keel....from memory I widened it by only
>
> Even with that much loss, if you could enginner the thing from the ground up
> to use the "cold casting", you'd probably see more boats get built. I
> didn't ask to see your math (mostly because it would make my head hurt), but
> I'm assuming you erred on the side of making sure its enough and maybe a
> little extra by using the 1.6 factor, correct?
>
> Mr. Carlson, since you actually attempted this on your Micro and ended up
> adding additional ballast, can you comment on how much you enlarged the
> design keel on your Micro?
about 20mm in the centre, tapered to standard width fore and aft,
and it came up to designed weight no problem.....I know because
the shot came in measured weight bags, and all the same size
shot(about 3mm dia)......I mixed batches in a bucket with epoxy, it
didnt take much epoxy to thoroughly wet the balls, and the
consistency was such that I had to scape it out of the bucket and
compact into the ply box keel. When I tap the outside now, it feels
just like solid lead. Would I do it again?...maybe not because of
the cost.....I would be tempted to try Pippos layered method.
I also filled the other void sections of the keel with a
plaster/fibreglass mixture.
Don
Robert,
I had actually thought about cold casting my keel for Micro as I have access to scuba divers weights, but I think I might not get the same amount of ballast down really low where it counts. In David Gerr's book he talks about the need for a pound of ballast down for every ounce up high on the mast. I can't remember the exact formula(s) but that was the gist of it. With that said, I will take as much lead as I can put under me. However, I would love for some engineer type to calculate how much poundage would be lost per volume via the cold casting method.David Jost
David and Robert:
Remember that the calculation assumes the spherical elements are uniform in size. Square or flatten them (divers weights) or mix sizes (fishing weights and shot combined) and you can significantly increase density.
chuck
>to
> Someone with some "I is an engineer" training needs to give some thought
> the idea used by several folks to use epoxy and lead shot to cast reallyinstead
> heavy items. Think about it. There should be some nice formula (like 1.3
> times total designed volume) for using say 1/2 oz sinkers and epoxy
> of solid lead to generate the same poundage of ballast. This would bearea
> wonderful for micro builders (there's plenty of space left in the keel
> for enlarging the casting) and others even with small amounts of lead.One
> would think that after some actual testing was done the design communityRobert:
> might actually integrate this sort of casting (we'll call it "Cold Casting
> Keels") into their various designs for homebuilders.
>
What about steel? Not sure but it must be close to the density of
epoxy/lead shot. With steel, you can weld or cut attachment points, and it
can be heavily galvanized. I would give it serious consideration.
Chuck
joined the group.
I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers that have been thrown around about
epoxy and lead spheres. Here's why:
If you take a sphere in a cube, it takes up about 52% of the volume of
the cube. In real life you can stack them closer than you can stack
cubes but let's assume you can't and that they take up 52% or the space.
You can mix in some much smaller spheres to take up half of the
remaining space. Voila, 75%. I'll bet if you could get a bunch of
different sizes you could do even better. Then it becomes a question of
how you get the epoxy in. This is probably not going to be very strong
compared to solid lead, though.
If you go to a lead supply place you can probably get round lead (wire?)
which we used to use in oceanographic buoys. This would be close to 75%
right off the bat. With the correct pair of sizes you could really do
well. This stuff is pretty easy to handle, too, but I don't remember
what it costs. Seem to remember an outfit called Nuclear Metals????
(Usually sold for shielding, not actually hot.)
Maybe you could cast the lead into small rectangular billets and glue
together?
I'd do the math on various kinds of stacking but i'm tired.
Real way is to mug about 5,000 dart players or find about 1,000,000,000
dead light bulbs and use the tungsten.....
>
would probably be most dense...
Gregg Carlson
> Robert,
> I had actually thought about cold casting my keel for Micro as I
>have access to scuba divers weights, but I think I might not get the
>same amount of ballast down really low where it counts. In David
>Gerr's book he talks about the need for a pound of ballast down for
>every ounce up high on the mast. I can't remember the exact formula(s)
>but that was the gist of it. With that said, I will take as much lead
>as I can put under me. However, I would love for some engineer type to
>calculate how much poundage would be lost per volume via the cold
>casting method.
>
>David Jost
>
>David and Robert:
>
>Remember that the calculation assumes the spherical elements are uniform
>in size. Square or flatten them (divers weights) or mix sizes (fishing
>weights and shot combined) and you can significantly increase density.
>
>chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>eGroups.com Home:
><http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger>http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger
> <http://www.egroups.com>www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
crystals), but I didn't get what was advertised...
Gregg Carlson
(engineer)
> Robert,
> I had actually thought about cold casting my keel for Micro as I have
>access to scuba divers weights, but I think I might not get the same
>amount of ballast down really low where it counts. In David Gerr's book
>he talks about the need for a pound of ballast down for every ounce up
>high on the mast. I can't remember the exact formula(s) but that was the
>gist of it. With that said, I will take as much lead as I can put under
>me. However, I would love for some engineer type to calculate how much
>poundage would be lost per volume via the cold casting method.
pounds of the 400 to fit. So, I guess the packing is about half. I added
a steel strap along the bottom.
Gregg Carlson
>So it comes out to the same as steel? (see air go out of my sails) :(
>
>Even with that much loss, if you could enginner the thing from the ground up
>to use the "cold casting", you'd probably see more boats get built. I
>didn't ask to see your math (mostly because it would make my head hurt), but
>I'm assuming you erred on the side of making sure its enough and maybe a
>little extra by using the 1.6 factor, correct?
>
>Mr. Carlson, since you actually attempted this on your Micro and ended up
>adding additional ballast, can you comment on how much you enlarged the
>design keel on your Micro?
>
>Let me also say that I'm thinking this would work only of those keel types
>as used on Micro and others that are long and shallow. This would likely
>not work on a fin/bulb style keel unless you could deal with additional
>draft.
>
>It great to have access to smart people who can do this sort of thing
>(spheroid math). Thanks very much Doug! BTW, I noted your email address
>ends with .ca. You did do the calculation suing the heavier american lead
>not the canadian type that is only sixty per cent of the american, right? ;)
>
>Robert & Amy Lundy
>St. Petersburg, fla.
>robert@...
>amy@...
Thinking a little further on this. The missing weight could be
externally attached in two halves of a small bulb on either side of the
keel. They shouldn't be too hard to mold up. You could take a piece of
channel iron and weld in a couple of short cross pieces to make up a
mold. Then pour the lead in, cool, remove, and do it again. Then, they
could be though bolted to each other. This sounds promising. Any math
or physics majors out there willing to work the particulars out?
David Jost wrote:
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 7bit
I had actually thought about cold casting my keel for Micro as I have access to scuba divers weights, but I think I might not get the same amount of ballast down really low where it counts. In David Gerr's book he talks about the need for a pound of ballast down for every ounce up high on the mast. I can't remember the exact formula(s) but that was the gist of it. With that said, I will take as much lead as I can put under me. However, I would love for some engineer type to calculate how much poundage would be lost per volume via the cold casting method.
David Jost
"Robert N. Lundy" wrote:
So it comes out to the same as steel? (see air go out of my sails) :(
Even with that much loss, if you could enginner the thing from the ground
up
to use the "cold casting", you'd probably see more boats get built.
I
didn't ask to see your math (mostly because it would make my head hurt),
but
I'm assuming you erred on the side of making sure its enough and maybe
a
little extra by using the 1.6 factor, correct?
Mr. Carlson, since you actually attempted this on your Micro and ended
up
adding additional ballast, can you comment on how much you enlarged
the
design keel on your Micro?
Let me also say that I'm thinking this would work only of those keel
types
as used on Micro and others that are long and shallow. This would
likely
not work on a fin/bulb style keel unless you could deal with additional
draft.
It great to have access to smart people who can do this sort of thing
(spheroid math). Thanks very much Doug! BTW, I noted your
email address
ends with .ca. You did do the calculation suing the heavier american
lead
not the canadian type that is only sixty per cent of the american,
right? ;)
Robert & Amy Lundy
St. Petersburg, fla.
robert@...
amy@...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: doug lillico [mailto:lillico@...]
> Sent: January 26, 2000 7:46 PM
> To: bolger@...
> Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
>
>
> "robert n. lundy" <rober-@...> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=1999
> > I've spent quite a bit of time studying the single handed schooner
in
> BWAOM
> > and wonder if it is really that much easier. I actually thought
it
> looked
> > somewhat more involved mainly for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. The "removable" inboard rudder assembly looks straightforward
in
> design,
> > but tricky to execute. Also, it makes an extra trunk one
has to
> build.
> >
> > 2. The hundred pound centerboard gives me "keel anxiety" over dealing
> with
> > that much lead.
> >
> > With that said, the two trickiest (to me anyway) parts of the
> building are
> > also what gives this boat a special place-its self righting and
the
> inboard
> > rudder makes for a really elegant schooner look-not to mention
you
> can sleep
> > inside of it.
> >
> > Someone with some "I is an engineer" training needs to give some
> thought to
> > the idea used by several folks to use epoxy and lead shot to cast
> really
> > heavy items. Think about it. There should be some nice
formula
> (like 1.3
> > times total designed volume) for using say 1/2 oz sinkers and epoxy
> instead
> > of solid lead to generate the same poundage of ballast. This
would be
> > wonderful for micro builders (there's plenty of space left in the
> keel area
> > for enlarging the casting) and others even with small amounts of
> lead. One
> > would think that after some actual testing was done the design
> community
> > might actually integrate this sort of casting (we'll call it "Cold
> Casting
> > Keels") into their various designs for homebuilders.
>
> A keel composed of randomly packed spheroid chunks of lead should
have
> a void volume of about 40% (33% to 44%, depending on packing
> conditions) of the total keel volume. If the 40% voidage volume is
> filled with epoxy, the "cold cast keel" would require about 1.6 times
> the volume of an integral, all lead cast keel, or about the same
volume
> as a steel keel.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fries, John [mailto:John.Fries@...]
> > > Sent: January 26, 2000 2:36 PM
> > > To: 'bolger@egroups.com'
> > > Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
> > >
> > >
> > > I am considering the Single Handed Schooner; I'm not sure where
> > > that fits in
> > > chronologically with the Light Schooner. The design appears
fast,
> and the
> > > discussion in Boats with an Open Mind implies that in practice
it
> > > was a fast
> > > design. I have selected it because 1. it will fit
in my garage,
> > > 2. looks a
> > > little less involved to build (not by much) than the Light
> > > Schooner, 3. it's
> > > very pretty and 4. I expect it to be very fast.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard [SMTP:richard@...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:11 PM
> > > > To: bolger@egroups.com
> > > > Subject: [bolger]
modern Light Scooner
> > > >
> > > > Someone here mentioned that the Light Scooner design was over
20
> years
> > > > old.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know if PB&F have updated the design or designed
a new
> > > > version since the original came out?
> > > >
> > > > The LS is supposed to be "faster than anything but a C class
cat".
> > > > Anybody know of other PB&F designs in the same speed class?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and,
> > > access them from
> > > > anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for
a
> > > chance to win a
> > > > digital camera.
> > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/948914198/
> > > >
> > > > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> > > > --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
> > > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BREAKTHROUGH ALTERNATIVE TO VIAGRA NOW AVAILABLE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/619/5/_/3457/_/948933949/
>
> eGroups.com Home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/
>http://www.egroups.com- Simplifying
group communications
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as
0.0% Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no
hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/974/5/_/3457/_/948937760/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
--http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
Even with that much loss, if you could enginner the thing from the ground up
to use the "cold casting", you'd probably see more boats get built. I
didn't ask to see your math (mostly because it would make my head hurt), but
I'm assuming you erred on the side of making sure its enough and maybe a
little extra by using the 1.6 factor, correct?
Mr. Carlson, since you actually attempted this on your Micro and ended up
adding additional ballast, can you comment on how much you enlarged the
design keel on your Micro?
Let me also say that I'm thinking this would work only of those keel types
as used on Micro and others that are long and shallow. This would likely
not work on a fin/bulb style keel unless you could deal with additional
draft.
It great to have access to smart people who can do this sort of thing
(spheroid math). Thanks very much Doug! BTW, I noted your email address
ends with .ca. You did do the calculation suing the heavier american lead
not the canadian type that is only sixty per cent of the american, right? ;)
Robert & Amy Lundy
St. Petersburg, fla.
robert@...
amy@...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: doug lillico [mailto:lillico@...]
> Sent: January 26, 2000 7:46 PM
> To:bolger@...
> Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
>
>
> "robert n. lundy" <rober-@...> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=1999
> > I've spent quite a bit of time studying the single handed schooner in
> BWAOM
> > and wonder if it is really that much easier. I actually thought it
> looked
> > somewhat more involved mainly for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. The "removable" inboard rudder assembly looks straightforward in
> design,
> > but tricky to execute. Also, it makes an extra trunk one has to
> build.
> >
> > 2. The hundred pound centerboard gives me "keel anxiety" over dealing
> with
> > that much lead.
> >
> > With that said, the two trickiest (to me anyway) parts of the
> building are
> > also what gives this boat a special place-its self righting and the
> inboard
> > rudder makes for a really elegant schooner look-not to mention you
> can sleep
> > inside of it.
> >
> > Someone with some "I is an engineer" training needs to give some
> thought to
> > the idea used by several folks to use epoxy and lead shot to cast
> really
> > heavy items. Think about it. There should be some nice formula
> (like 1.3
> > times total designed volume) for using say 1/2 oz sinkers and epoxy
> instead
> > of solid lead to generate the same poundage of ballast. This would be
> > wonderful for micro builders (there's plenty of space left in the
> keel area
> > for enlarging the casting) and others even with small amounts of
> lead. One
> > would think that after some actual testing was done the design
> community
> > might actually integrate this sort of casting (we'll call it "Cold
> Casting
> > Keels") into their various designs for homebuilders.
>
> A keel composed of randomly packed spheroid chunks of lead should have
> a void volume of about 40% (33% to 44%, depending on packing
> conditions) of the total keel volume. If the 40% voidage volume is
> filled with epoxy, the "cold cast keel" would require about 1.6 times
> the volume of an integral, all lead cast keel, or about the same volume
> as a steel keel.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fries, John [mailto:John.Fries@...]
> > > Sent: January 26, 2000 2:36 PM
> > > To: 'bolger@egroups.com'
> > > Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
> > >
> > >
> > > I am considering the Single Handed Schooner; I'm not sure where
> > > that fits in
> > > chronologically with the Light Schooner. The design appears fast,
> and the
> > > discussion in Boats with an Open Mind implies that in practice it
> > > was a fast
> > > design. I have selected it because 1. it will fit in my garage,
> > > 2. looks a
> > > little less involved to build (not by much) than the Light
> > > Schooner, 3. it's
> > > very pretty and 4. I expect it to be very fast.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard [SMTP:richard@...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:11 PM
> > > > To:bolger@egroups.com
> > > > Subject: [bolger] modern Light Scooner
> > > >
> > > > Someone here mentioned that the Light Scooner design was over 20
> years
> > > > old.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know if PB&F have updated the design or designed a new
> > > > version since the original came out?
> > > >
> > > > The LS is supposed to be "faster than anything but a C class cat".
> > > > Anybody know of other PB&F designs in the same speed class?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and,
> > > access them from
> > > > anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a
> > > chance to win a
> > > > digital camera.
> > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/948914198/
> > > >
> > > > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> > > > --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
> > > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BREAKTHROUGH ALTERNATIVE TO VIAGRA NOW AVAILABLE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/619/5/_/3457/_/948933949/
>
> eGroups.com Home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/
>http://www.egroups.com- Simplifying group communications
>
>
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=1999
> I've spent quite a bit of time studying the single handed schooner inBWAOM
> and wonder if it is really that much easier. I actually thought itlooked
> somewhat more involved mainly for two reasons:design,
>
> 1. The "removable" inboard rudder assembly looks straightforward in
> but tricky to execute. Also, it makes an extra trunk one has tobuild.
>with
> 2. The hundred pound centerboard gives me "keel anxiety" over dealing
> that much lead.building are
>
> With that said, the two trickiest (to me anyway) parts of the
> also what gives this boat a special place-its self righting and theinboard
> rudder makes for a really elegant schooner look-not to mention youcan sleep
> inside of it.thought to
>
> Someone with some "I is an engineer" training needs to give some
> the idea used by several folks to use epoxy and lead shot to castreally
> heavy items. Think about it. There should be some nice formula(like 1.3
> times total designed volume) for using say 1/2 oz sinkers and epoxyinstead
> of solid lead to generate the same poundage of ballast. This would bekeel area
> wonderful for micro builders (there's plenty of space left in the
> for enlarging the casting) and others even with small amounts oflead. One
> would think that after some actual testing was done the designcommunity
> might actually integrate this sort of casting (we'll call it "ColdCasting
> Keels") into their various designs for homebuilders.A keel composed of randomly packed spheroid chunks of lead should have
a void volume of about 40% (33% to 44%, depending on packing
conditions) of the total keel volume. If the 40% voidage volume is
filled with epoxy, the "cold cast keel" would require about 1.6 times
the volume of an integral, all lead cast keel, or about the same volume
as a steel keel.
>and the
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fries, John [mailto:John.Fries@...]
> > Sent: January 26, 2000 2:36 PM
> > To: 'bolger@egroups.com'
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
> >
> >
> > I am considering the Single Handed Schooner; I'm not sure where
> > that fits in
> > chronologically with the Light Schooner. The design appears fast,
> > discussion in Boats with an Open Mind implies that in practice ityears
> > was a fast
> > design. I have selected it because 1. it will fit in my garage,
> > 2. looks a
> > little less involved to build (not by much) than the Light
> > Schooner, 3. it's
> > very pretty and 4. I expect it to be very fast.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard [SMTP:richard@...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:11 PM
> > > To:bolger@egroups.com
> > > Subject: [bolger] modern Light Scooner
> > >
> > > Someone here mentioned that the Light Scooner design was over 20
> > > old.-------
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if PB&F have updated the design or designed a new
> > > version since the original came out?
> > >
> > > The LS is supposed to be "faster than anything but a C class cat".
> > > Anybody know of other PB&F designs in the same speed class?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and,
> > access them from
> > > anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a
> > chance to win a
> > > digital camera.
> > >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/948914198/
> > >
> > > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> > > --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
> > >
> >
and wonder if it is really that much easier. I actually thought it looked
somewhat more involved mainly for two reasons:
1. The "removable" inboard rudder assembly looks straightforward in design,
but tricky to execute. Also, it makes an extra trunk one has to build.
2. The hundred pound centerboard gives me "keel anxiety" over dealing with
that much lead.
With that said, the two trickiest (to me anyway) parts of the building are
also what gives this boat a special place-its self righting and the inboard
rudder makes for a really elegant schooner look-not to mention you can sleep
inside of it.
Someone with some "I is an engineer" training needs to give some thought to
the idea used by several folks to use epoxy and lead shot to cast really
heavy items. Think about it. There should be some nice formula (like 1.3
times total designed volume) for using say 1/2 oz sinkers and epoxy instead
of solid lead to generate the same poundage of ballast. This would be
wonderful for micro builders (there's plenty of space left in the keel area
for enlarging the casting) and others even with small amounts of lead. One
would think that after some actual testing was done the design community
might actually integrate this sort of casting (we'll call it "Cold Casting
Keels") into their various designs for homebuilders.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fries, John [mailto:John.Fries@...]
> Sent: January 26, 2000 2:36 PM
> To: 'bolger@egroups.com'
> Subject: [bolger] Re: modern Light Schooner
>
>
> I am considering the Single Handed Schooner; I'm not sure where
> that fits in
> chronologically with the Light Schooner. The design appears fast, and the
> discussion in Boats with an Open Mind implies that in practice it
> was a fast
> design. I have selected it because 1. it will fit in my garage,
> 2. looks a
> little less involved to build (not by much) than the Light
> Schooner, 3. it's
> very pretty and 4. I expect it to be very fast.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard [SMTP:richard@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:11 PM
> > To:bolger@egroups.com
> > Subject: [bolger] modern Light Scooner
> >
> > Someone here mentioned that the Light Scooner design was over 20 years
> > old.
> >
> > Does anyone know if PB&F have updated the design or designed a new
> > version since the original came out?
> >
> > The LS is supposed to be "faster than anything but a C class cat".
> > Anybody know of other PB&F designs in the same speed class?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and,
> access them from
> > anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a
> chance to win a
> > digital camera.
> >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/948914198/
> >
> > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> > --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BREAKTHROUGH ALTERNATIVE TO VIAGRA NOW AVAILABLE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/619/5/_/3457/_/948915411/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> --http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=bolger&m=1
>
>
chronologically with the Light Schooner. The design appears fast, and the
discussion in Boats with an Open Mind implies that in practice it was a fast
design. I have selected it because 1. it will fit in my garage, 2. looks a
little less involved to build (not by much) than the Light Schooner, 3. it's
very pretty and 4. I expect it to be very fast.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [SMTP:richard@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:11 PM
> To:bolger@egroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] modern Light Scooner
>
> Someone here mentioned that the Light Scooner design was over 20 years
> old.
>
> Does anyone know if PB&F have updated the design or designed a new
> version since the original came out?
>
> The LS is supposed to be "faster than anything but a C class cat".
> Anybody know of other PB&F designs in the same speed class?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
> digital camera.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/948914198/
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
>