Re: water ballast
Free surface effect? I don't follow. Nor did I say anything about
water ballast 'sloshing around in the bilge,' because you're right,
sloshing water does nothing for righting moment - but neither does
water ballast in a bilge filled with sloshing water. picture those
plastic jugs of water 'ballast' tied with string to a frame member in
the bilge of a skiff half filled with water. The jugs meader around
at neutral bounancy (disregarding the jug itself) contributing zero
to stability until the boat is heeled enough to bring a jug out of
the water.
But in a dry bilge where the water in the jugs no longer has to
displace it's own volume in water before it acts to weigh down the
hull the jug is continually pressing against the bottom of the hull,
weighing the boat down, adding to stability.
I think your statement that it depends on how you "draw the envelope"
is dead on. In a given boat, whether ballast in put in the boat or
tacked on outside the boat has the potential to make a huge
difference depending on the density of the ballast, and can actually
contribute nothing to stability (water) or even give negative
stabilty (foam) because tacking on ballast outside a given hull in
effect adds to the overall volume of the hull. Placeing the same
ballast inside the hull makes the boat float deeper, but doesn't
change the shape of the boat - no matter what the displacement of the
ballast itself - thus potentially adding to stability depending where
it is placed.
On a boat STILL ON PAPER, the distinctions between outside and inside
water ballast can be less clear depending on the priorities of the
designer, because one way or the other room has to be found for the
ballast. If the boat has to be given more volume in order to add
ballast without compromising other priorities (like headroom) then
the distinction between 'inside' and 'outside' ballast - as far as
the designer is concerned - becomes fuzzy - because if to make room
for the ballast the designer has to deepen the keel or harden the
bilge - thus changing the overall volume - the designer is, in
effect, tacking on the ballast 'outside' despite the fact that the
builder will actually be placing the ballast 'inside.'
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Bell" <smallboatdesigner@m...>
wrote:
water ballast 'sloshing around in the bilge,' because you're right,
sloshing water does nothing for righting moment - but neither does
water ballast in a bilge filled with sloshing water. picture those
plastic jugs of water 'ballast' tied with string to a frame member in
the bilge of a skiff half filled with water. The jugs meader around
at neutral bounancy (disregarding the jug itself) contributing zero
to stability until the boat is heeled enough to bring a jug out of
the water.
But in a dry bilge where the water in the jugs no longer has to
displace it's own volume in water before it acts to weigh down the
hull the jug is continually pressing against the bottom of the hull,
weighing the boat down, adding to stability.
I think your statement that it depends on how you "draw the envelope"
is dead on. In a given boat, whether ballast in put in the boat or
tacked on outside the boat has the potential to make a huge
difference depending on the density of the ballast, and can actually
contribute nothing to stability (water) or even give negative
stabilty (foam) because tacking on ballast outside a given hull in
effect adds to the overall volume of the hull. Placeing the same
ballast inside the hull makes the boat float deeper, but doesn't
change the shape of the boat - no matter what the displacement of the
ballast itself - thus potentially adding to stability depending where
it is placed.
On a boat STILL ON PAPER, the distinctions between outside and inside
water ballast can be less clear depending on the priorities of the
designer, because one way or the other room has to be found for the
ballast. If the boat has to be given more volume in order to add
ballast without compromising other priorities (like headroom) then
the distinction between 'inside' and 'outside' ballast - as far as
the designer is concerned - becomes fuzzy - because if to make room
for the ballast the designer has to deepen the keel or harden the
bilge - thus changing the overall volume - the designer is, in
effect, tacking on the ballast 'outside' despite the fact that the
builder will actually be placing the ballast 'inside.'
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Bell" <smallboatdesigner@m...>
wrote:
> Free surface effect. Water sloshing around in the bilge doesnothing for
> righting moment. Bad example. ....and
>
> ....Basically it all depends on how you draw the envelope.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...>
> | If you put the water ballast back in the boat, and then flood the
> | boat enough to cover the ballast, measure, then take the jugs out
> | measure again, the amount of force required to tip the boat agiven
> | amount will be equal.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
That's right - Jim Young was the designer. Also they were not S&G as
someone else corrected me on. They were nicely shaped hulls and like
you say, had good performance. Seemed quite advanced at the time.
Thanks, Nels
> No Nels, it was Jim Young. I built a 5.7 in about 1973. But more ofa
> performance boat than to suit people here. Fast but a little scary.Hi Don,
> DonB
> >
That's right - Jim Young was the designer. Also they were not S&G as
someone else corrected me on. They were nicely shaped hulls and like
you say, had good performance. Seemed quite advanced at the time.
Thanks, Nels
Nels wrote:
to fixing up at some point (needs a new transom). It does
not have any ballast at all, unless you count the steel
centreboard, but the wide beam provides considerable
stability. The Hartley designs predate stitch and glue
construction - they are built "traditional" ply-on-frame.
Bruce Fountain
Senior Software Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
> I recall many years ago thatI have a Hartley TS16 in my garage, which I may get around
> there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
> ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
> designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
> Very advanced for their time.
to fixing up at some point (needs a new transom). It does
not have any ballast at all, unless you count the steel
centreboard, but the wide beam provides considerable
stability. The Hartley designs predate stitch and glue
construction - they are built "traditional" ply-on-frame.
Bruce Fountain
Senior Software Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
No Nels, it was Jim Young. I built a 5.7 in about 1973. But more of a
performance boat than to suit people here. Fast but a little scary.
DonB
performance boat than to suit people here. Fast but a little scary.
DonB
>
> I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
> Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
> there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
> ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
> designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
> Very advanced for their time.
> Cheers Nels
Free surface effect. Water sloshing around in the bilge does nothing for
righting moment. Bad example. The problem I have is that I understand what's
going on and just lack the words to explain it adequately. Bolger hints at
it the now oft quoted lines in BWAOM.
We had a huge discussion about this on the Woodenboat forum last year (with
real NA's participating) , the link to the thread can be found here. I've
got post the images again, but the words are there.
http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00
7481
Basically it all depends on how you draw the envelope.
righting moment. Bad example. The problem I have is that I understand what's
going on and just lack the words to explain it adequately. Bolger hints at
it the now oft quoted lines in BWAOM.
We had a huge discussion about this on the Woodenboat forum last year (with
real NA's participating) , the link to the thread can be found here. I've
got post the images again, but the words are there.
http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00
7481
Basically it all depends on how you draw the envelope.
----- Original Message -----
From: "oneillparker" <jboatguy@...>
| If you put the water ballast back in the boat, and then flood the
| boat enough to cover the ballast, measure, then take the jugs out and
| measure again, the amount of force required to tip the boat a given
| amount will be equal.
How about this version:
Take those two gallons and place them as low as possible in the bilge
of the skiff, then measure how much force it takes to tip the boat a
given amount.
Now, take the water out and repeat the experiment; the amount of
force will be less because the water was acting as ballast.
If you put the water ballast back in the boat, and then flood the
boat enough to cover the ballast, measure, then take the jugs out and
measure again, the amount of force required to tip the boat a given
amount will be equal.
If you substitue those 2 gallons of water with an equivelent weight
of flotation, your results with the bilge dry will be about the same,
because the foam will ACT as ballast. But, your results with the
bilge wet will be opposite, i.e. with the foam (as long as it's
fastened down in the bilge), the boat will tip easier. In fact, it
will more than likely float with a list to begin with.
Do all the same with lead, and the lead will tend to stabilize the
boat no matter what (although it will do so less so with the bilge
wet, because lead too has to displace it's volume with water, meaning
it won't be as 'heavy' when sitting in water) But add enough water to
the bilge, and the lead will do its best to sink that skiff - the
water ballast won't...
John O'Neill
Take those two gallons and place them as low as possible in the bilge
of the skiff, then measure how much force it takes to tip the boat a
given amount.
Now, take the water out and repeat the experiment; the amount of
force will be less because the water was acting as ballast.
If you put the water ballast back in the boat, and then flood the
boat enough to cover the ballast, measure, then take the jugs out and
measure again, the amount of force required to tip the boat a given
amount will be equal.
If you substitue those 2 gallons of water with an equivelent weight
of flotation, your results with the bilge dry will be about the same,
because the foam will ACT as ballast. But, your results with the
bilge wet will be opposite, i.e. with the foam (as long as it's
fastened down in the bilge), the boat will tip easier. In fact, it
will more than likely float with a list to begin with.
Do all the same with lead, and the lead will tend to stabilize the
boat no matter what (although it will do so less so with the bilge
wet, because lead too has to displace it's volume with water, meaning
it won't be as 'heavy' when sitting in water) But add enough water to
the bilge, and the lead will do its best to sink that skiff - the
water ballast won't...
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> Guys,
> Here's a pretty simple experiment which may illustrate some of the
basic
> facts about water ballast.
>
> What you need is a 2 x 4 about 10 ft long, a couple of 2 gallon
water
> jugs with handles, two lengths of light line and a skiff.
>
> Fill the jugs with water. Tie them one to each end of the 2 x 4
with
> about 4 or 5 ft of slack. Rig the piece of wood across the skiff
with
> the two filled jugs sunk at either end of the wood.. Rock your
boat. The
> weight of the filled jugs will slow the rock down. They will have
almost
> no effect on whether or not the boat tips although it will tip more
slowly.
>
> Then shorten the length of rope tying the jugs to the 2 x 4 so that
the
> jugs are just awash when the skiff is on an even keel. Now when you
try
> to rock the boat you will be trying to lift one or the other of the
> water filled jugs out of the water and your skiff will resist the
> heeling your rocking is trying to produce. In that case your boat
will
> have become 'stiffer' through the action of the water filled jugs,
which
> of course, are now acting as ballast, each one after the other as
the
> boat rocks from side to side.
>
> On the other hand, a chunk of lead hanging down from the bottom of
the
> boat will always exert a righting force on the boat as it tips
either
> way. So, lead is simpler but a drained pair of ballast tanks is
lighter
> when it comes time to haul the boat out of the water.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Nels wrote:
>
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...>
wrote:
> > > No, Nels, it was not intended as "serious advice to newbies."
> > >
> >
> > The original request was from a newbie who was looking for serious
> > advice. He was advised, amongst other things that marshmellows,
> > feathers, styrofoam and fat men filled with beer are all valid
forms
> > of ballest.
> >
> > Also I was seriously advised on another forum that styrofoam
should
> > be installed as low in boat as possible so it would also act as
> > ballest. I was told some other weird advice too which I won't
even go
> > into.
> >
> > Cheers, Nels
> >
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
posts
> > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930,
> > Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cdupr4o/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=
egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075564304/A=1945637/R=0/*http://www.net
flix.com/Default?mqso=60178397&partid=4116732>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Guys,
Here's a pretty simple experiment which may illustrate some of the basic
facts about water ballast.
What you need is a 2 x 4 about 10 ft long, a couple of 2 gallon water
jugs with handles, two lengths of light line and a skiff.
Fill the jugs with water. Tie them one to each end of the 2 x 4 with
about 4 or 5 ft of slack. Rig the piece of wood across the skiff with
the two filled jugs sunk at either end of the wood.. Rock your boat. The
weight of the filled jugs will slow the rock down. They will have almost
no effect on whether or not the boat tips although it will tip more slowly.
Then shorten the length of rope tying the jugs to the 2 x 4 so that the
jugs are just awash when the skiff is on an even keel. Now when you try
to rock the boat you will be trying to lift one or the other of the
water filled jugs out of the water and your skiff will resist the
heeling your rocking is trying to produce. In that case your boat will
have become 'stiffer' through the action of the water filled jugs, which
of course, are now acting as ballast, each one after the other as the
boat rocks from side to side.
On the other hand, a chunk of lead hanging down from the bottom of the
boat will always exert a righting force on the boat as it tips either
way. So, lead is simpler but a drained pair of ballast tanks is lighter
when it comes time to haul the boat out of the water.
Jim
Nels wrote:
Here's a pretty simple experiment which may illustrate some of the basic
facts about water ballast.
What you need is a 2 x 4 about 10 ft long, a couple of 2 gallon water
jugs with handles, two lengths of light line and a skiff.
Fill the jugs with water. Tie them one to each end of the 2 x 4 with
about 4 or 5 ft of slack. Rig the piece of wood across the skiff with
the two filled jugs sunk at either end of the wood.. Rock your boat. The
weight of the filled jugs will slow the rock down. They will have almost
no effect on whether or not the boat tips although it will tip more slowly.
Then shorten the length of rope tying the jugs to the 2 x 4 so that the
jugs are just awash when the skiff is on an even keel. Now when you try
to rock the boat you will be trying to lift one or the other of the
water filled jugs out of the water and your skiff will resist the
heeling your rocking is trying to produce. In that case your boat will
have become 'stiffer' through the action of the water filled jugs, which
of course, are now acting as ballast, each one after the other as the
boat rocks from side to side.
On the other hand, a chunk of lead hanging down from the bottom of the
boat will always exert a righting force on the boat as it tips either
way. So, lead is simpler but a drained pair of ballast tanks is lighter
when it comes time to haul the boat out of the water.
Jim
Nels wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > No, Nels, it was not intended as "serious advice to newbies."
> >
>
> The original request was from a newbie who was looking for serious
> advice. He was advised, amongst other things that marshmellows,
> feathers, styrofoam and fat men filled with beer are all valid forms
> of ballest.
>
> Also I was seriously advised on another forum that styrofoam should
> be installed as low in boat as possible so it would also act as
> ballest. I was told some other weird advice too which I won't even go
> into.
>
> Cheers, Nels
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
> Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cdupr4o/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075564304/A=1945637/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178397&partid=4116732>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
The only one I'm sure Welsford uses water ballast in is his Light Dory; he
fills up a 10 litre plastic jerrycan with water and keeps it on a short
line. He tosses the water bottle to the bow or stern (depending on what
trim seems appropriate for the sea conditions), and retrieves it with the
line. I'm familiar with the Hartley line (even have a set of plans for
their 18' launch); very nice boats indeed! I've used a Macgregor 26X (water
ballast, moderate rig, 50HP Honda!) and the boat was skittery running as a
ballast-less powerboat, but settled down very nicely when we opened the
flood valves and started wallowing along. Word of advice: don't run the
slalom course at full throttle with no ballast in these things!
Sounds like you've got the right idea for LESTAT. I really LIKE the idea of
inflatable ballast, and look forward to hearing how it works out.....
David
_____
From: Nels [mailto:arvent@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 3:38 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast
I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
Very advanced for their time.
Also Chuck Leinweber has built a Michalak design with water ballest
tanks and loves it.
Lots of choices for everyone.
I plan to use water ballest and additional lead in LESTAT - in the
form of jugs of fresh water and lead acid batteries. As well as
additional floatation/ballest using an air mattress.
Cheers Nels
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fills up a 10 litre plastic jerrycan with water and keeps it on a short
line. He tosses the water bottle to the bow or stern (depending on what
trim seems appropriate for the sea conditions), and retrieves it with the
line. I'm familiar with the Hartley line (even have a set of plans for
their 18' launch); very nice boats indeed! I've used a Macgregor 26X (water
ballast, moderate rig, 50HP Honda!) and the boat was skittery running as a
ballast-less powerboat, but settled down very nicely when we opened the
flood valves and started wallowing along. Word of advice: don't run the
slalom course at full throttle with no ballast in these things!
Sounds like you've got the right idea for LESTAT. I really LIKE the idea of
inflatable ballast, and look forward to hearing how it works out.....
David
_____
From: Nels [mailto:arvent@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 3:38 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast
I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
Very advanced for their time.
Also Chuck Leinweber has built a Michalak design with water ballest
tanks and loves it.
Lots of choices for everyone.
I plan to use water ballest and additional lead in LESTAT - in the
form of jugs of fresh water and lead acid batteries. As well as
additional floatation/ballest using an air mattress.
Cheers Nels
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
Very advanced for their time.
Also Chuck Leinweber has built a Michalak design with water ballest
tanks and loves it.
Lots of choices for everyone.
I plan to use water ballest and additional lead in LESTAT - in the
form of jugs of fresh water and lead acid batteries. As well as
additional floatation/ballest using an air mattress.
Cheers Nels
> Gee, Nels; it would seem obvious to the scientific mind that whatyou need
> is something that meets all your needs at once, like foam ballast!It'll
> also work as flotation, too.I've
>
> Y'know, I used to think I knew stuff about boats, but the things
> learned in this group amaze me more every day!Me too!
>
> ;->
>
> David Romasco
I believe you are familiar with some of John Welsford's designs?
Which ones of his use water ballest? I recall many years ago that
there were a series of trailer sailers from NZ that used water
ballest and named "Hartley Trailer Sailers" Do you recall those
designs. They were multi chine stitch and glue constrution as well.
Very advanced for their time.
Also Chuck Leinweber has built a Michalak design with water ballest
tanks and loves it.
Lots of choices for everyone.
I plan to use water ballest and additional lead in LESTAT - in the
form of jugs of fresh water and lead acid batteries. As well as
additional floatation/ballest using an air mattress.
Cheers Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.
I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.
I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.
Cheers, Nels
wrote:
> Nels,Wow - I didn't realize that anyone wanted to ban water ballest.
>> The design of a boat is a complicated process and
> requires more than just banning water ballast to make
> a design successful. Lets not let those newbees
> reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
> will solve all their problems.
Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.
I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.
I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.
Cheers, Nels
Gee, Nels; it would seem obvious to the scientific mind that what you need
is something that meets all your needs at once, like foam ballast! It'll
also work as flotation, too.
Y'know, I used to think I knew stuff about boats, but the things I've
learned in this group amaze me more every day!
;->
David Romasco
_____
From: Nels [mailto:arvent@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 2:47 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.
I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.
I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.
Cheers, Nels
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cb3mvkh/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075751220/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Def
ault?mqso=60178383&partid=4116730> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1945638/rand=187714165>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
is something that meets all your needs at once, like foam ballast! It'll
also work as flotation, too.
Y'know, I used to think I knew stuff about boats, but the things I've
learned in this group amaze me more every day!
;->
David Romasco
_____
From: Nels [mailto:arvent@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 2:47 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> Nels,Wow - I didn't realize that anyone wanted to ban water ballest.
>> The design of a boat is a complicated process and
> requires more than just banning water ballast to make
> a design successful. Lets not let those newbees
> reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
> will solve all their problems.
Personally I would welcome any designs considered better than MICRO
when it comes to self-righting. Obviously since my main focus is
trailerability water ballest would be a great way to go, and is one I
have considered for a long time.
I will also confirm that Michalak likes water ballest, so there is
always that option for newbies to try it out for themselves.
I have a few of his designs, but still consider PCB&F's as being more
appealing for me. But that is just me and why I am in this group.
Cheers, Nels
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cb3mvkh/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705065791:HM/EXP=1075751220/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Def
ault?mqso=60178383&partid=4116730> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1945638/rand=187714165>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nels,
This strikes me like the arguments against seat belts.
A pipe came through the car and stabbed the driver,
they will never get me to wear belts, I don't want
that to happen to me.
I think we are talking about some very bad designs.
Designs where the results of likely occurances were
not accounted for. The connection with the fact that
water was used as a ballast is loose, probably
coincidence. Sounds like the design was wide and
stable. Intentionally designed stable. Oops, its
stable upside down also. If it was lighter then it
would be easier to flip over. Lets throw out the
ballast to make it lighter. Oh its not stable enough
now.
The design of a boat is a complicated process and
requires more than just banning water ballast to make
a design successful. Lets not let those newbees
reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
will solve all their problems.
I am sure Mr. Bolger would agree that many factors
prevent a boat from recovering by itself, excess
width, foam ballast in the bilge, a low air filled
cabin with a high water filled cockpit, a direct
impact from a supertanker......
Sincerely,
Gene T.
This strikes me like the arguments against seat belts.
A pipe came through the car and stabbed the driver,
they will never get me to wear belts, I don't want
that to happen to me.
I think we are talking about some very bad designs.
Designs where the results of likely occurances were
not accounted for. The connection with the fact that
water was used as a ballast is loose, probably
coincidence. Sounds like the design was wide and
stable. Intentionally designed stable. Oops, its
stable upside down also. If it was lighter then it
would be easier to flip over. Lets throw out the
ballast to make it lighter. Oh its not stable enough
now.
The design of a boat is a complicated process and
requires more than just banning water ballast to make
a design successful. Lets not let those newbees
reading this get the idea that avoiding water ballast
will solve all their problems.
I am sure Mr. Bolger would agree that many factors
prevent a boat from recovering by itself, excess
width, foam ballast in the bilge, a low air filled
cabin with a high water filled cockpit, a direct
impact from a supertanker......
Sincerely,
Gene T.
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T."
> <goldranger02-boats@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > This confuses me! Water trapped up at the highest
> > point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks
> are
> > in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an
> impediment
> > to rolling back over. The "obvious" logic escapes
> me!
> >
> > Gene T.
>
> In the article where I read about this the water
> ballest tanks were
> divided into two areas - one in each bilge. The
> single crew could not
> right the boat until he got into water shallow
> enough where he could
> lift the weight of the near tank high enough out of
> the water to flip
> it over. While in the water he could not get enough
> leverage to do so
> no matter what he tried. The most effective way was
> bearing down on
> the near leeboard - using it as a lever. If the
> tanks had been empty
> he could have done it easily is what he claimed. The
> biggest drawback
> in this particular design however, was deemed to be
> the large cockpit
> that was not self-draining once it swamped. The
> water was coming in
> faster than going out - so the weight of the water
> in the cockpit
> plus the water in the ballest tanks and the force of
> the wind on the
> furled sail, caused the boat to roll over. The guy
> was sleeping in
> the cuddy and when he opened the hatch, it filled
> with water as well.
> (The boat was designed as a "coastal cruiser" and
> got hit with a
> thunderstorm while lying offshore to get away from
> the bugs and
> rocks.)
>
> At any rate, that convinced me to follow what Bolger
> recommends when
> it comes to seaworthiness - and that is - a boat
> that can recover
> from a knockdown on it's own.
>
> I live where the water is cold most of the year, and
> we get some
> pretty nasty thunderstorms.
>
> Cheers, Nels
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
divided into two areas - one in each bilge. The single crew could not
right the boat until he got into water shallow enough where he could
lift the weight of the near tank high enough out of the water to flip
it over. While in the water he could not get enough leverage to do so
no matter what he tried. The most effective way was bearing down on
the near leeboard - using it as a lever. If the tanks had been empty
he could have done it easily is what he claimed. The biggest drawback
in this particular design however, was deemed to be the large cockpit
that was not self-draining once it swamped. The water was coming in
faster than going out - so the weight of the water in the cockpit
plus the water in the ballest tanks and the force of the wind on the
furled sail, caused the boat to roll over. The guy was sleeping in
the cuddy and when he opened the hatch, it filled with water as well.
(The boat was designed as a "coastal cruiser" and got hit with a
thunderstorm while lying offshore to get away from the bugs and
rocks.)
At any rate, that convinced me to follow what Bolger recommends when
it comes to seaworthiness - and that is - a boat that can recover
from a knockdown on it's own.
I live where the water is cold most of the year, and we get some
pretty nasty thunderstorms.
Cheers, Nels
wrote:
>In the article where I read about this the water ballest tanks were
> This confuses me! Water trapped up at the highest
> point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks are
> in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an impediment
> to rolling back over. The "obvious" logic escapes me!
>
> Gene T.
divided into two areas - one in each bilge. The single crew could not
right the boat until he got into water shallow enough where he could
lift the weight of the near tank high enough out of the water to flip
it over. While in the water he could not get enough leverage to do so
no matter what he tried. The most effective way was bearing down on
the near leeboard - using it as a lever. If the tanks had been empty
he could have done it easily is what he claimed. The biggest drawback
in this particular design however, was deemed to be the large cockpit
that was not self-draining once it swamped. The water was coming in
faster than going out - so the weight of the water in the cockpit
plus the water in the ballest tanks and the force of the wind on the
furled sail, caused the boat to roll over. The guy was sleeping in
the cuddy and when he opened the hatch, it filled with water as well.
(The boat was designed as a "coastal cruiser" and got hit with a
thunderstorm while lying offshore to get away from the bugs and
rocks.)
At any rate, that convinced me to follow what Bolger recommends when
it comes to seaworthiness - and that is - a boat that can recover
from a knockdown on it's own.
I live where the water is cold most of the year, and we get some
pretty nasty thunderstorms.
Cheers, Nels
...
point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks are
in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an impediment
to rolling back over. The "obvious" logic escapes me!
Gene T.
> My second point was that an unballested hull would...
> be easier to re-
> right if inverted - than one with full water ballest
> tanks.
> Cheers, NelsThis confuses me! Water trapped up at the highest
>
point of the hull, where the water ballast tanks are
in this inverted boat doesn't seem like an impediment
to rolling back over. The "obvious" logic escapes me!
Gene T.
I did a little research on Musicbox3 which is the Michalak version of
MICRO using water ballest and a single leeboard. It seems the plans
were drawn in 2001 and so far none have been built.
Obviously many people view water ballest as being advantageous and
Michalak is one of those people.
From what I have read, PCB&F are not as enthusiastic about it. Their
one design, (Martha Jane) had some stability problems I have heard.
Since then all their designs seem to favor solid ballest or none at
all.
Cheers, Nels
MICRO using water ballest and a single leeboard. It seems the plans
were drawn in 2001 and so far none have been built.
Obviously many people view water ballest as being advantageous and
Michalak is one of those people.
From what I have read, PCB&F are not as enthusiastic about it. Their
one design, (Martha Jane) had some stability problems I have heard.
Since then all their designs seem to favor solid ballest or none at
all.
Cheers, Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
inverted, whereas MB3 (or whatever it is called) might. In fact the
designer said it would not return from an inversion!
My second point was that an unballested hull would be easier to re-
right if inverted - than one with full water ballest tanks.
Of course I agree that any craft that is heavier than the weight of
water it displaces will sink if flooded - no matter if it has a lead
keel or not. Again that is what Archimedes Principle is all about.
Cheers, Nels
> Nels, consider, in an inverted craft with water ballast tanks awashor
> while it is certainly true that the ballast is contributing little
> nothing towards righting the craft, it is also certain that it isMy original point was - and still is - that MICRO will not remain
> contributing nothing towards actually sinking the craft either.
>
inverted, whereas MB3 (or whatever it is called) might. In fact the
designer said it would not return from an inversion!
My second point was that an unballested hull would be easier to re-
right if inverted - than one with full water ballest tanks.
Of course I agree that any craft that is heavier than the weight of
water it displaces will sink if flooded - no matter if it has a lead
keel or not. Again that is what Archimedes Principle is all about.
Cheers, Nels
Nels, consider, in an inverted craft with water ballast tanks awash
while it is certainly true that the ballast is contributing little or
nothing towards righting the craft, it is also certain that it is
contributing nothing towards actually sinking the craft either.
If, however, the same weight of water ballast was replaced with lead,
and considering that the craft is barely afloat in the first place,
the craft would now sink. The denser lead would displace less water,
and down she would go.
If a designer didn't want that scenario to happen then the designer
would have to find space for flotation inside the hull anyway - and
lots of it - to offset that lead. Whereas the water-ballasted design
is already not sinking, and only needs enough flotation high up to
make the boat unstable when inverted.
So, using lead as ballast because it takes up less space is a great
argument if you don't mind sinking. But personally, afloat in the big
wide water with all that can go wrong I'd rather have a boat that
will stay with me when disaster strikes, no matter how crippled she
may be, than a SINKER that will give up the ghost, abandon me, and
disappear under the waves....
Which reminds me of a report I saw recently, in Latitude 38, of a
pinky schooner that did just that recently in the South Seas. Filled
with lead ballast down she went. No storm. No reef. No collision. No
floating containers in mid-ocean. Just a light fog (as I recall).
No, this sinker caught her big keel in a fisherman's trawling net and
got pulled sideways enough to flood. It took two or three minutes,
and she was gone. Her skipper, sailing solo, had just enough time to
take to the inflatable....
John O'Neill
while it is certainly true that the ballast is contributing little or
nothing towards righting the craft, it is also certain that it is
contributing nothing towards actually sinking the craft either.
If, however, the same weight of water ballast was replaced with lead,
and considering that the craft is barely afloat in the first place,
the craft would now sink. The denser lead would displace less water,
and down she would go.
If a designer didn't want that scenario to happen then the designer
would have to find space for flotation inside the hull anyway - and
lots of it - to offset that lead. Whereas the water-ballasted design
is already not sinking, and only needs enough flotation high up to
make the boat unstable when inverted.
So, using lead as ballast because it takes up less space is a great
argument if you don't mind sinking. But personally, afloat in the big
wide water with all that can go wrong I'd rather have a boat that
will stay with me when disaster strikes, no matter how crippled she
may be, than a SINKER that will give up the ghost, abandon me, and
disappear under the waves....
Which reminds me of a report I saw recently, in Latitude 38, of a
pinky schooner that did just that recently in the South Seas. Filled
with lead ballast down she went. No storm. No reef. No collision. No
floating containers in mid-ocean. Just a light fog (as I recall).
No, this sinker caught her big keel in a fisherman's trawling net and
got pulled sideways enough to flood. It took two or three minutes,
and she was gone. Her skipper, sailing solo, had just enough time to
take to the inflatable....
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> There is another disadvantage of a boat with water ballest tanks.
If
> it becomes inverted and fills with water, it can be almost
impossible
> for the occupants to return it upright as they would have to be
> strong enough to lift the weight of the water filled ballest tank
up
> above the water and over 180 degrees to get the boat back on it's
> feet. Not easy to do with 500 pounds of water while you are
yourself
> in the water. Your only option is likely to drain the tank which
may
> be impossible when outside the boat and in the water. It happened
to
> one of Bolger's designs apparently.
>
> "A couple years ago, one of my water-ballested designs met with an
> accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had
positive
> bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom up with the
> outside ballest tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would
have
> righted her and saved some inconvenience,even danger in cold
water."
> BWAOM page 245
>
> So in this case I would rather be in a boat without water ballest
> tanks. Also without the tanks, it would allow more options to load
it
> down with a more effective ballest than water. i.e. lead, rocks,
fat
> guys filled with beer.
>
> Nels
This discussion has evolved since the start, but it's still relevant to
water ballast.
If you were doing a racing boat, nothing else was occupying that space,
and there was enough lead in the keel to keep the thing upright while
flooded with the styrofoam in that position, and you don't need large
bilge capacity, it's good advice. The foam will weigh at least 2 lbs per
cubic foot, and maybe 4. If you have 2000 lbs of floatation in 4 lb
density foam, that's the weight of another crewmember (but not a fat one
unless you go to 4000 lbs) low in the bilge. Low in the bilge is
probably almost as good as high on the weather rail. Not only that, but
more of the interior of the boat will stay above the water when the hull
is holed. And if you used strong foam and installed it as a "core" it
could greatly increase the strength of the bottom. When the hull is
whole, the water doesn't know what's inside the hull. It only comes into
equilibrium with the forces on the boat. And one of those forces is gravity.
Think about putting that 138 lbs of foam on the masthead. You'd expect
things to get much tippier, right? Well putting it under the deck
instead of under the floor(sorry, I forgot myterminology) is probably
only 1/10 as bad (or maybe 1/8), but it's still bad.
The biggest problem with water ballast, from a theoretical viewpoint, is
that it's not as dense as lead so you can't fit it where you want it.
water ballast.
If you were doing a racing boat, nothing else was occupying that space,
and there was enough lead in the keel to keep the thing upright while
flooded with the styrofoam in that position, and you don't need large
bilge capacity, it's good advice. The foam will weigh at least 2 lbs per
cubic foot, and maybe 4. If you have 2000 lbs of floatation in 4 lb
density foam, that's the weight of another crewmember (but not a fat one
unless you go to 4000 lbs) low in the bilge. Low in the bilge is
probably almost as good as high on the weather rail. Not only that, but
more of the interior of the boat will stay above the water when the hull
is holed. And if you used strong foam and installed it as a "core" it
could greatly increase the strength of the bottom. When the hull is
whole, the water doesn't know what's inside the hull. It only comes into
equilibrium with the forces on the boat. And one of those forces is gravity.
Think about putting that 138 lbs of foam on the masthead. You'd expect
things to get much tippier, right? Well putting it under the deck
instead of under the floor(sorry, I forgot myterminology) is probably
only 1/10 as bad (or maybe 1/8), but it's still bad.
The biggest problem with water ballast, from a theoretical viewpoint, is
that it's not as dense as lead so you can't fit it where you want it.
>Nels wrote:
>snip
>Also I was seriously advised on another forum that styrofoam should
>be installed as low in boat as possible so it would also act as
>ballest. I was told some other weird advice too which I won't even go
>into.
>
>Cheers, Nels
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
it becomes inverted and fills with water, it can be almost impossible
for the occupants to return it upright as they would have to be
strong enough to lift the weight of the water filled ballest tank up
above the water and over 180 degrees to get the boat back on it's
feet. Not easy to do with 500 pounds of water while you are yourself
in the water. Your only option is likely to drain the tank which may
be impossible when outside the boat and in the water. It happened to
one of Bolger's designs apparently.
"A couple years ago, one of my water-ballested designs met with an
accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had positive
bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom up with the
outside ballest tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would have
righted her and saved some inconvenience,even danger in cold water."
BWAOM page 245
So in this case I would rather be in a boat without water ballest
tanks. Also without the tanks, it would allow more options to load it
down with a more effective ballest than water. i.e. lead, rocks, fat
guys filled with beer.
Nels
wrote:
> I'm sure it wasn't advise, just fact. 100lb is 100lb.There is another disadvantage of a boat with water ballest tanks. If
> Nobody said the example applied to a flooding boat.
>
> Gene T.
it becomes inverted and fills with water, it can be almost impossible
for the occupants to return it upright as they would have to be
strong enough to lift the weight of the water filled ballest tank up
above the water and over 180 degrees to get the boat back on it's
feet. Not easy to do with 500 pounds of water while you are yourself
in the water. Your only option is likely to drain the tank which may
be impossible when outside the boat and in the water. It happened to
one of Bolger's designs apparently.
"A couple years ago, one of my water-ballested designs met with an
accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had positive
bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom up with the
outside ballest tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would have
righted her and saved some inconvenience,even danger in cold water."
BWAOM page 245
So in this case I would rather be in a boat without water ballest
tanks. Also without the tanks, it would allow more options to load it
down with a more effective ballest than water. i.e. lead, rocks, fat
guys filled with beer.
Nels
I'm sure it wasn't advise, just fact. 100lb is 100lb.
Nobody said the example applied to a flooding boat.
Gene T.
--- Nels <arvent@...> wrote:
Nobody said the example applied to a flooding boat.
Gene T.
--- Nels <arvent@...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker"
> <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
> > Don has it right on...
> >
> > But if you're still unclear on the difference
> between outside and
> > inside ballast, look at it this way:
> >
> > If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of
> any vessel, that
> > vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it
> will float lower in
> > the water. It will also be more top heavy (less
> stable). If you put
> > the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still
> float lower in the
> > water, and by the same exact amount it did when it
> was on deck, but
> > the vessel will now be more stable. That 100
> pounds, fastened in
> the
> > bilge, is now "ballast."
> >
> With all due respect, my understanding is that any
> material that is
> less dense than water acts as floatation and
> anything more dense acts
> as ballest. If it is exactly the same density it
> acts as neither.
>
> Putting styrofoam in the bilges is totally
> rediculous unless you want
> your boat to to be more stable inverted, than
> upright. I hope this is
> not intended as serious advice to newbies.
>
> Sincerely, Nels
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
advice. He was advised, amongst other things that marshmellows,
feathers, styrofoam and fat men filled with beer are all valid forms
of ballest.
Also I was seriously advised on another forum that styrofoam should
be installed as low in boat as possible so it would also act as
ballest. I was told some other weird advice too which I won't even go
into.
Cheers, Nels
> No, Nels, it was not intended as "serious advice to newbies."The original request was from a newbie who was looking for serious
>
advice. He was advised, amongst other things that marshmellows,
feathers, styrofoam and fat men filled with beer are all valid forms
of ballest.
Also I was seriously advised on another forum that styrofoam should
be installed as low in boat as possible so it would also act as
ballest. I was told some other weird advice too which I won't even go
into.
Cheers, Nels
> Putting styrofoam in the bilges is totally rediculous unless youwant
> your boat to to be more stable inverted, than upright. I hope thisis
> not intended as serious advice to newbies.No, Nels, it was not intended as "serious advice to newbies."
>
> Sincerely, Nels
What I said was "IF you put," emphasis on the IF, by way of
introdcing a thought experiment.
Here's another thought experiment - and again Nels, I am not
sugessting that you, or anyone, actually perform this experiment....
Take a gallon of that two-part expanding foam stuff, still in the
can, and put it on deck of your boat. Does it float lower in the
water? Yes.
Now pick the can up and throw it overboard. Does it sink? Yes. It is
indeed heavier than water.
Now dive in, fetch the can from the deep blue, and put it back on the
boat, this time in the bilge. Is there a difference in the amount the
boat sank from when it was on deck, to when it is in the bilge? No.
By your definition the can is acting as ballast ("my understanding is
that any material that is
> less dense than water acts as floatation and anything more denseacts
> as ballest"). Now the magic part (according to you), because we'regoing to magically change the ballast into flotation! Mix the two
parts!
Ohmygosh! That same few pounds, magically, before our very and amazed
eyes, has turned from "ballast" into flotation! It must no longer be
weighing down the boat! It's...it's...floating it! --- according to
you.
According to me, as long as this boat hasn't sunk then the foam is
still sitting in the bilge so it's still acting to weigh down the
boat, and if it's still below the center of gravity it's still acting
as ballast, even it it does take up a horribly inconvinient amount of
space.
(Actually the boat is not floating exactly as low in the water as it
was when the stuff was in the can, because as foam it is now
displacing more air that it was as a liquid. But it's by an amount so
miniscule as can be safely disregarged.)
The only difference, Nels, between lead in the bilges of a floating
boat and an equal weight of foam in the bilges of a floating boat, is
that the lead takes up considerably less space, and can be utilized
more efficiently as ballast.
If the boat sinks!, yes!, then there is a dramatic difference. Now,
instead of weighing the boat down and taking up valuable space, foam
is not only considerably reducing the amount of water that can enter
the boat, but because it is less dense than the water it now finds
itself surrounded by, it is tending to float the boat.
Lead doesn't.
John O'Neill
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:that
> > Don has it right on...
> >
> > But if you're still unclear on the difference between outside and
> > inside ballast, look at it this way:
> >
> > If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of any vessel,
> > vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it will float lowerin
> > the water. It will also be more top heavy (less stable). If youput
> > the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still float lower in thebut
> > water, and by the same exact amount it did when it was on deck,
> > the vessel will now be more stable. That 100 pounds, fastened inacts
> the
> > bilge, is now "ballast."
> >
> With all due respect, my understanding is that any material that is
> less dense than water acts as floatation and anything more dense
> as ballest. If it is exactly the same density it acts as neither.want
>
> Putting styrofoam in the bilges is totally rediculous unless you
> your boat to to be more stable inverted, than upright. I hope thisis
> not intended as serious advice to newbies.
>
> Sincerely, Nels
As long as the boat is afloat, the hull is between the water ballast and the lake water. Essentially even though it's below the waterline, it's still technically out of the water and it's weight is valid as ballast. Whether it's water or Styrofoam!
Humm....kind of makes sense. Hey you can teach an old dog new tricks.
This does invalidate a several books that I have which reference to Bolgers way of thinking. Maybe that was the concept 20 or 30 years ago and to us techy brained people it made sense even though it may well be wrong!
Jeff
Humm....kind of makes sense. Hey you can teach an old dog new tricks.
This does invalidate a several books that I have which reference to Bolgers way of thinking. Maybe that was the concept 20 or 30 years ago and to us techy brained people it made sense even though it may well be wrong!
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: oneillparker
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: water ballast
Don has it right on...
But if you're still unclear on the difference between outside and
inside ballast, look at it this way:
If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of any vessel, that
vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it will float lower in
the water. It will also be more top heavy (less stable). If you put
the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still float lower in the
water, and by the same exact amount it did when it was on deck, but
the vessel will now be more stable. That 100 pounds, fastened in the
bilge, is now "ballast."
If, now, you take the styrofoam, throw it overboard and then force it
under the keel, the boat will rise, making it less stable. The
styrofoam is no longer "ballast," and actually decreases the boat's
stability - because to get it under the water you had to make it
displace it's own volume with an equivalent volume of much heavier
water.
Do the same excercise with 100 pounds of lead, and the lead under the
keel will still be ballast, because square inch for square inch lead
is heavier than water. But it won't provide a full 100 pounds of
ballest - the boat will float higher in the water than it did with
the lead inside the hull - because with it 'outside' the hull it has
to displace its own volume in the water (in simple terms, things are
lighter under water).
Do the same with 100 pounds of water. In the boat, the boat is 100
pounds heavier and floats deeper. Place the water in the water, and
it has zero effect, because just like lead, it has a certain volume
and has to displace that volume, making it weigh nothing in relation
to the water 'around it'.
For water to be called "ballast" it has to be contained. If it is
allowed to slosh around, like blige water, it does weigh the hull
down, but it provides no stability because it's always at the lowest
point in the hull no matter how the hull is heeled. (If you used,
heaven forbid, mercury as ballast, you'd have to do the same thing,
contain it, before you could call it "ballast.")
In short, inside ballast adds no additional volume to the hull that
it didn't already possess - outside ballast, of any nature, does.
If the outside lead is just bolted straight to the hull it isn't
going to be much more effective than the same weight of water ballast
inside. If however the lead is fastened to the end of a long lever
arm attached to the hull, as in a fin keel, lead comes into its own
as a stability aid.
To me there is a huge safety reason for using water as ballast,
because if the boat starts to sink the water "ballast" does nothing
to help sink it (because it is now effectively 'in' the water, and
thus displacing it's own volume). But unless there is an adequate
amount of flotation lead ballast will sink the boat, and often
frighteningly quickly. (Remember the America's Cup boat that split in
half off San Diego?, as Captain Aubrey might have said, "Rocks ain't
in it.")
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Don Johnson" <dej.fci@i...> wrote:
> ...Many people seem to have a hard time understanding why water
ballast inside the
> boat (not external!) is effective. The fact that it is water is
totally irrelevant... > -Don
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
less dense than water acts as floatation and anything more dense acts
as ballest. If it is exactly the same density it acts as neither.
Putting styrofoam in the bilges is totally rediculous unless you want
your boat to to be more stable inverted, than upright. I hope this is
not intended as serious advice to newbies.
Sincerely, Nels
> Don has it right on...the
>
> But if you're still unclear on the difference between outside and
> inside ballast, look at it this way:
>
> If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of any vessel, that
> vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it will float lower in
> the water. It will also be more top heavy (less stable). If you put
> the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still float lower in the
> water, and by the same exact amount it did when it was on deck, but
> the vessel will now be more stable. That 100 pounds, fastened in
> bilge, is now "ballast."With all due respect, my understanding is that any material that is
>
less dense than water acts as floatation and anything more dense acts
as ballest. If it is exactly the same density it acts as neither.
Putting styrofoam in the bilges is totally rediculous unless you want
your boat to to be more stable inverted, than upright. I hope this is
not intended as serious advice to newbies.
Sincerely, Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oneillparker" <jboatguy@c...> wrote:
would be with the same weight of water ballast, and that would help
its stability.
Bolger wrote the following about water ballast.
". . . the initial stability of a water ballasted boat is that of
the unflooded part, while the reserve stability is enhanced by the
weight of as much of the tank volume as comes above the waterline as
the boat heels. Water ballast works best in very shallow boats in
which it can be spread out to the sides."
Carter
>ballast
> If the outside lead is just bolted straight to the hull it isn't
> going to be much more effective than the same weight of water
> inside.The boat's center of gravity will be lower with the lead than it
would be with the same weight of water ballast, and that would help
its stability.
Bolger wrote the following about water ballast.
". . . the initial stability of a water ballasted boat is that of
the unflooded part, while the reserve stability is enhanced by the
weight of as much of the tank volume as comes above the waterline as
the boat heels. Water ballast works best in very shallow boats in
which it can be spread out to the sides."
Carter
Don has it right on...
But if you're still unclear on the difference between outside and
inside ballast, look at it this way:
If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of any vessel, that
vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it will float lower in
the water. It will also be more top heavy (less stable). If you put
the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still float lower in the
water, and by the same exact amount it did when it was on deck, but
the vessel will now be more stable. That 100 pounds, fastened in the
bilge, is now "ballast."
If, now, you take the styrofoam, throw it overboard and then force it
under the keel, the boat will rise, making it less stable. The
styrofoam is no longer "ballast," and actually decreases the boat's
stability - because to get it under the water you had to make it
displace it's own volume with an equivalent volume of much heavier
water.
Do the same excercise with 100 pounds of lead, and the lead under the
keel will still be ballast, because square inch for square inch lead
is heavier than water. But it won't provide a full 100 pounds of
ballest - the boat will float higher in the water than it did with
the lead inside the hull - because with it 'outside' the hull it has
to displace its own volume in the water (in simple terms, things are
lighter under water).
Do the same with 100 pounds of water. In the boat, the boat is 100
pounds heavier and floats deeper. Place the water in the water, and
it has zero effect, because just like lead, it has a certain volume
and has to displace that volume, making it weigh nothing in relation
to the water 'around it'.
For water to be called "ballast" it has to be contained. If it is
allowed to slosh around, like blige water, it does weigh the hull
down, but it provides no stability because it's always at the lowest
point in the hull no matter how the hull is heeled. (If you used,
heaven forbid, mercury as ballast, you'd have to do the same thing,
contain it, before you could call it "ballast.")
In short, inside ballast adds no additional volume to the hull that
it didn't already possess - outside ballast, of any nature, does.
If the outside lead is just bolted straight to the hull it isn't
going to be much more effective than the same weight of water ballast
inside. If however the lead is fastened to the end of a long lever
arm attached to the hull, as in a fin keel, lead comes into its own
as a stability aid.
To me there is a huge safety reason for using water as ballast,
because if the boat starts to sink the water "ballast" does nothing
to help sink it (because it is now effectively 'in' the water, and
thus displacing it's own volume). But unless there is an adequate
amount of flotation lead ballast will sink the boat, and often
frighteningly quickly. (Remember the America's Cup boat that split in
half off San Diego?, as Captain Aubrey might have said, "Rocks ain't
in it.")
John O'Neill
But if you're still unclear on the difference between outside and
inside ballast, look at it this way:
If you put 100 pounds of styrofoam on the deck of any vessel, that
vessel will displace 100 more pounds - i.e. it will float lower in
the water. It will also be more top heavy (less stable). If you put
the syrofoam in the bilge the boat will still float lower in the
water, and by the same exact amount it did when it was on deck, but
the vessel will now be more stable. That 100 pounds, fastened in the
bilge, is now "ballast."
If, now, you take the styrofoam, throw it overboard and then force it
under the keel, the boat will rise, making it less stable. The
styrofoam is no longer "ballast," and actually decreases the boat's
stability - because to get it under the water you had to make it
displace it's own volume with an equivalent volume of much heavier
water.
Do the same excercise with 100 pounds of lead, and the lead under the
keel will still be ballast, because square inch for square inch lead
is heavier than water. But it won't provide a full 100 pounds of
ballest - the boat will float higher in the water than it did with
the lead inside the hull - because with it 'outside' the hull it has
to displace its own volume in the water (in simple terms, things are
lighter under water).
Do the same with 100 pounds of water. In the boat, the boat is 100
pounds heavier and floats deeper. Place the water in the water, and
it has zero effect, because just like lead, it has a certain volume
and has to displace that volume, making it weigh nothing in relation
to the water 'around it'.
For water to be called "ballast" it has to be contained. If it is
allowed to slosh around, like blige water, it does weigh the hull
down, but it provides no stability because it's always at the lowest
point in the hull no matter how the hull is heeled. (If you used,
heaven forbid, mercury as ballast, you'd have to do the same thing,
contain it, before you could call it "ballast.")
In short, inside ballast adds no additional volume to the hull that
it didn't already possess - outside ballast, of any nature, does.
If the outside lead is just bolted straight to the hull it isn't
going to be much more effective than the same weight of water ballast
inside. If however the lead is fastened to the end of a long lever
arm attached to the hull, as in a fin keel, lead comes into its own
as a stability aid.
To me there is a huge safety reason for using water as ballast,
because if the boat starts to sink the water "ballast" does nothing
to help sink it (because it is now effectively 'in' the water, and
thus displacing it's own volume). But unless there is an adequate
amount of flotation lead ballast will sink the boat, and often
frighteningly quickly. (Remember the America's Cup boat that split in
half off San Diego?, as Captain Aubrey might have said, "Rocks ain't
in it.")
John O'Neill
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Don Johnson" <dej.fci@i...> wrote:
> ...Many people seem to have a hard time understanding why water
ballast inside the
> boat (not external!) is effective. The fact that it is water is
totally irrelevant... > -Don
Many people seem to have a hard time understanding why water ballast inside the
boat (not external!) is effective. The fact that it is water is totally irrelevant. Think of
it as just portable weight. You could fill your ballast tanks with oil which is lighter than
water and it will be effective too. For that matter, if you have enough room, you could
use feathers as ballast. Water is typically used as portable ballast for boats because
it is just so convenient. There is never a shortage of water anywhere we would use
the boat and filling the tanks merely requires opening a valve or a plug.
The only difference between lead and water as inside ballast is the much greater
density of lead will keep the boats center of gravity lower which is a good thing.
And, of course, the water tanks take up a lot more room than the same weight in
lead.
Water does have an often overlooked advantage. If the boat should capsize, water
ballast becomes neutral. It is taking up space that would be filled with water anyway
It wont sink the boat.
Externally, water ballast is useless below the water line. Any substance with a lower
density than water is is floatation, not ballast, if it is below the water line (outside the
boat only!) However, should it raise above the water line, it becomes ballast. Think
of a large wooden leeboard on the windward side of the boat. It serves as ballast.
When you tack and put the board down, it wants to float unless held down with it's
own ballast or some kind of mechanical devise. If you hold it mechanically, you
actually have a force pushing up on the lee side of the boat. If you took that same
leeboard (better to use a spare!) and attached it to the inside bottom of the boat, it
would be ballast all of the time.
-Don
boat (not external!) is effective. The fact that it is water is totally irrelevant. Think of
it as just portable weight. You could fill your ballast tanks with oil which is lighter than
water and it will be effective too. For that matter, if you have enough room, you could
use feathers as ballast. Water is typically used as portable ballast for boats because
it is just so convenient. There is never a shortage of water anywhere we would use
the boat and filling the tanks merely requires opening a valve or a plug.
The only difference between lead and water as inside ballast is the much greater
density of lead will keep the boats center of gravity lower which is a good thing.
And, of course, the water tanks take up a lot more room than the same weight in
lead.
Water does have an often overlooked advantage. If the boat should capsize, water
ballast becomes neutral. It is taking up space that would be filled with water anyway
It wont sink the boat.
Externally, water ballast is useless below the water line. Any substance with a lower
density than water is is floatation, not ballast, if it is below the water line (outside the
boat only!) However, should it raise above the water line, it becomes ballast. Think
of a large wooden leeboard on the windward side of the boat. It serves as ballast.
When you tack and put the board down, it wants to float unless held down with it's
own ballast or some kind of mechanical devise. If you hold it mechanically, you
actually have a force pushing up on the lee side of the boat. If you took that same
leeboard (better to use a spare!) and attached it to the inside bottom of the boat, it
would be ballast all of the time.
-Don
Haven't decided yet. I'm getting tired of putt-putting around in my
Microtrawler, I want to go back to a sailboat, but have really come
to enjoy the pilothouse on my Microtrawler. As I have worked outside
in all weather for so many years, I appreciate shelter more than most
folks. So, thinking of selling the Microtrawler (hear that everyone?)
and building a "cabin sailboat".
Still in the "thinking about it" stage. Looking hard at some of
Michalak's designs.
Rick
Microtrawler, I want to go back to a sailboat, but have really come
to enjoy the pilothouse on my Microtrawler. As I have worked outside
in all weather for so many years, I appreciate shelter more than most
folks. So, thinking of selling the Microtrawler (hear that everyone?)
and building a "cabin sailboat".
Still in the "thinking about it" stage. Looking hard at some of
Michalak's designs.
Rick
> Rick: what are you building?
>
> Chuck.
Thank-you Chuck, Never thought about the pumps, and theen the vents .... Like the idea about removable lids, and the silicone gasket.
Rick
Rick: what are you building?
Chuck.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rick
Rick: what are you building?
Chuck.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thank-you Chuck,
Never thought about the pumps, and theen the vents ....
Like the idea about removable lids, and the silicone gasket.
Rick
not too graceful. Next time, I would grease one side, and apply the
silicone to the other side. I think it would seal the joint, and
still allow removal of the top.
bit easier, and it adds 1/2 mph under power. Since I have the pumps,
I
had to have a vent - this means that I have to put the plugs in while
sailing so that the windward tank doesn't drain.
Never thought about the pumps, and theen the vents ....
Like the idea about removable lids, and the silicone gasket.
Rick
> The drain hole... Do you use a plug when in use? If so, what kindof plug?
> Rick: I used a regular 1" transom plug from Wal-mart for each tank.I reglassed the tanks, I had to pry them off. Unfortunately, it was
> Tank access.. Only through the Beckson ports? Or is the lid
> removable?
> If so, how?
> I used silicone sealer and SS screws to attach the tank tops. When
not too graceful. Next time, I would grease one side, and apply the
silicone to the other side. I think it would seal the joint, and
still allow removal of the top.
>empty them while still in the water. It makes retrieving the boat a
> I also installed a 1000 gph cheapo Rule bilge pump in each tank to
bit easier, and it adds 1/2 mph under power. Since I have the pumps,
I
had to have a vent - this means that I have to put the plugs in while
sailing so that the windward tank doesn't drain.
>
> Chuck
Rick wrote:
Getting ready to build my first boat with waterballast. (Not my first
boat)Couple questions for those of you that have been through it.
The drain hole... Do you use a plug when in use? If so, what kind of
plug?
Rick: I used a regular 1" transom plug from Wal-mart for each tank.
Tank access.. Only through the Beckson ports? Or is the lid
removable?
If so, how?
I used silicone sealer and SS screws to attach the tank tops. When I reglassed the tanks, I had to pry them off. Unfortunately, it was not too graceful. Next time, I would grease one side, and apply the silicone to the other side. I think it would seal the joint, and still allow removal of the top.
I also installed a 1000 gph cheapo Rule bilge pump in each tank to empty them while still in the water. It makes retrieving the boat a bit easier, and it adds 1/2 mph under power. Since I have the pumps, I had to have a vent - this means that I have to put the plugs in while sailing so that the windward tank doesn't drain.
Chuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Getting ready to build my first boat with waterballast. (Not my first
boat)Couple questions for those of you that have been through it.
The drain hole... Do you use a plug when in use? If so, what kind of
plug?
Rick: I used a regular 1" transom plug from Wal-mart for each tank.
Tank access.. Only through the Beckson ports? Or is the lid
removable?
If so, how?
I used silicone sealer and SS screws to attach the tank tops. When I reglassed the tanks, I had to pry them off. Unfortunately, it was not too graceful. Next time, I would grease one side, and apply the silicone to the other side. I think it would seal the joint, and still allow removal of the top.
I also installed a 1000 gph cheapo Rule bilge pump in each tank to empty them while still in the water. It makes retrieving the boat a bit easier, and it adds 1/2 mph under power. Since I have the pumps, I had to have a vent - this means that I have to put the plugs in while sailing so that the windward tank doesn't drain.
Chuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Getting ready to build my first boat with waterballast. (Not my first
boat)
Couple questions for those of you that have been through it.
The drain hole... Do you use a plug when in use? If so, what kind of
plug?
Tank access.. Only through the Beckson ports? Or is the lid
removable?
If so, how?
And Chuck, you said you had to go back to add glass to your tanks,
did
you have to cut them open or is there a removable lid? (I guess that
was included in my last question)
Anyway, comments welcome.
Rick Bedard
I have built Jim Michalak's Caprice, and I am happy with the water
ballast. I can pull this 25 ft ketch with a small pickup, and I have
not had a problem with rot. The first thing to remember is that you
need to glass the insides of the tanks. I did not do this at first
(I
tried epoxying only) and had to go back and redo them. Second is to
have a large (6") Beckson type ports on the top of each tank, and a
drain hole in the bottom. Open these up before you head home, and
the
tanks will dry out Ok.
boat)
Couple questions for those of you that have been through it.
The drain hole... Do you use a plug when in use? If so, what kind of
plug?
Tank access.. Only through the Beckson ports? Or is the lid
removable?
If so, how?
And Chuck, you said you had to go back to add glass to your tanks,
did
you have to cut them open or is there a removable lid? (I guess that
was included in my last question)
Anyway, comments welcome.
Rick Bedard
I have built Jim Michalak's Caprice, and I am happy with the water
ballast. I can pull this 25 ft ketch with a small pickup, and I have
not had a problem with rot. The first thing to remember is that you
need to glass the insides of the tanks. I did not do this at first
(I
tried epoxying only) and had to go back and redo them. Second is to
have a large (6") Beckson type ports on the top of each tank, and a
drain hole in the bottom. Open these up before you head home, and
the
tanks will dry out Ok.
>
> Chuck
Thanks Chuck for your info on water ballast! Anyone else?
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
[Image]
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
> While reading Tony and Mike's conversation on water/concrete ballast,ADVERTISEMENT
> I
> would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
>
> ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had
> such
> a problem in their tanks. Tom Welther
>
> Tom:
>
> I have built Jim Michalak's Caprice, and I am happy with the water
> ballast. I can pull this 25 ft ketch with a small pickup, and I have
> not had a problem with rot. The first thing to remember is that you
> need to glass the insides of the tanks. I did not do this at first (I
> tried epoxying only) and had to go back and redo them. Second is to
> have a large (6") Beckson type ports on the top of each tank, and a
> drain hole in the bottom. Open these up before you head home, and the
> tanks will dry out Ok.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[Image]
>--
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
> From: Tom Welther <tomw@...>Tom:
> Subject: water ballast
>
> While reading Tony and Mike's conversation on water/concrete ballast, I
> would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
> ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had such
> a problem in their tanks. I'm contemplating building a water ballasted
> boat, and I would like to hear from people with experience from that
> quarter concerning the dos and don'ts. Thanks. Tom Welther
>
I have a 24' sharpie with water ballast and I treated the interior of
the water tanks just like it was the exterior of the hull... the same
thickness epoxy & fiberglass encapsulation.
Tom K
While reading Tony and Mike's conversation on water/concrete ballast, I
would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had such
a problem in their tanks. Tom Welther
Tom:
I have built Jim Michalak's Caprice, and I am happy with the water ballast. I can pull this 25 ft ketch with a small pickup, and I have not had a problem with rot. The first thing to remember is that you need to glass the insides of the tanks. I did not do this at first (I tried epoxying only) and had to go back and redo them. Second is to have a large (6") Beckson type ports on the top of each tank, and a drain hole in the bottom. Open these up before you head home, and the tanks will dry out Ok.
Chuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had such
a problem in their tanks. Tom Welther
Tom:
I have built Jim Michalak's Caprice, and I am happy with the water ballast. I can pull this 25 ft ketch with a small pickup, and I have not had a problem with rot. The first thing to remember is that you need to glass the insides of the tanks. I did not do this at first (I tried epoxying only) and had to go back and redo them. Second is to have a large (6") Beckson type ports on the top of each tank, and a drain hole in the bottom. Open these up before you head home, and the tanks will dry out Ok.
Chuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
While reading Tony and Mike's conversation on water/concrete ballast, I
would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had such
a problem in their tanks. I'm contemplating building a water ballasted
boat, and I would like to hear from people with experience from that
quarter concerning the dos and don'ts. Thanks. Tom Welther
mikestockstill wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
would like to ask anyone reading this and having experience with water
ballast how they keep rot out of the tanks or whether they have had such
a problem in their tanks. I'm contemplating building a water ballasted
boat, and I would like to hear from people with experience from that
quarter concerning the dos and don'ts. Thanks. Tom Welther
mikestockstill wrote:
> Hi Tony -ADVERTISEMENT
>
> I find the water ballast to be convenient and quite sufficient. If
> you are not convinced, then I recommend you give it a try before
> investing the time and energy in a modification.
>
> See you on the water.
>
> Mike
>
>
> > So my 2 questions to the group are
> > 1.. what are your thoughts about using concrete
> > 2.. for those of you with Martha Janes do you believe that 1000lbs
> of
> > ballast is the correct amount to add... I believe that ive read
> many
> > of you are using less weight but could be mistaken
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tony Walker
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>--
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tom,
I like your simple system. I like you comments about being foolproof
even better. Advances in foolishness. Brilliant! But we can't just
rely on what the future might bring--we've got to get our best minds
going on it, and there's no time to waste.
-- Johannes
I like your simple system. I like you comments about being foolproof
even better. Advances in foolishness. Brilliant! But we can't just
rely on what the future might bring--we've got to get our best minds
going on it, and there's no time to waste.
-- Johannes
--- In bolger@y..., tom <tkremer@s...> wrote:
> On my big sharpie (24') I have about 50 gallons of water ballast in
two
> under-the-berth tanks. My highly engineered and refined filling
system
> involves opening a Beckson screw port on the top of each tank ($6
each)
> and using the fresh water hose at the gasoline dock... when the
tanks
> need to be emptied I open the same screw ports and insert my Beckson
> hand bilge pump ($17 and I had one already) and empty each tank in
a few minutes.
>
> Away from the decadant luxuries of civilization I can use my off-
brand
> plastic bucket ($0 and I had one already) to fill the ballast tanks.
>
> OK, so it's not very sexy compared to lots of plumbing and fittings
and
> valves and electric pumps and air pressure systems and through-
hulls...
> but it has an outstanding practical advantage in that it is
reliable,
> maybe even foolproof (at least for the current generation of fools,
who
> knows what advances in foolishness the future might bring!).
>
> Tom K
Tom:
That is almost exactly the same as mine. The only difference is that under
each beckson port is a 1" hole with a standard transom plug. To fill the
tanks, I unscrew the port, and pull the plug. When the tank is full, I
replace the plug. Simple. Have you thought about using this system? If so
why did you choose not to? What design is your sharpie?
Chuck
That is almost exactly the same as mine. The only difference is that under
each beckson port is a 1" hole with a standard transom plug. To fill the
tanks, I unscrew the port, and pull the plug. When the tank is full, I
replace the plug. Simple. Have you thought about using this system? If so
why did you choose not to? What design is your sharpie?
Chuck
>
> On my big sharpie (24') I have about 50 gallons of water ballast in two
> under-the-berth tanks. My highly engineered and refined filling system
> involves opening a Beckson screw port on the top of each tank ($6 each)
> and using the fresh water hose at the gasoline dock... when the tanks
> need to be emptied I open the same screw ports and insert my Beckson
> hand bilge pump ($17 and I had one already) and empty each tank
> in a few minutes.
>
> Away from the decadant luxuries of civilization I can use my off-brand
> plastic bucket ($0 and I had one already) to fill the ballast tanks.
>
> OK, so it's not very sexy compared to lots of plumbing and fittings and
> valves and electric pumps and air pressure systems and through-hulls...
> but it has an outstanding practical advantage in that it is reliable,
> maybe even foolproof (at least for the current generation of fools, who
> knows what advances in foolishness the future might bring!).
>
> Tom K
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
On my big sharpie (24') I have about 50 gallons of water ballast in two
under-the-berth tanks. My highly engineered and refined filling system
involves opening a Beckson screw port on the top of each tank ($6 each)
and using the fresh water hose at the gasoline dock... when the tanks
need to be emptied I open the same screw ports and insert my Beckson
hand bilge pump ($17 and I had one already) and empty each tank in a few minutes.
Away from the decadant luxuries of civilization I can use my off-brand
plastic bucket ($0 and I had one already) to fill the ballast tanks.
OK, so it's not very sexy compared to lots of plumbing and fittings and
valves and electric pumps and air pressure systems and through-hulls...
but it has an outstanding practical advantage in that it is reliable,
maybe even foolproof (at least for the current generation of fools, who
knows what advances in foolishness the future might bring!).
Tom K
under-the-berth tanks. My highly engineered and refined filling system
involves opening a Beckson screw port on the top of each tank ($6 each)
and using the fresh water hose at the gasoline dock... when the tanks
need to be emptied I open the same screw ports and insert my Beckson
hand bilge pump ($17 and I had one already) and empty each tank in a few minutes.
Away from the decadant luxuries of civilization I can use my off-brand
plastic bucket ($0 and I had one already) to fill the ballast tanks.
OK, so it's not very sexy compared to lots of plumbing and fittings and
valves and electric pumps and air pressure systems and through-hulls...
but it has an outstanding practical advantage in that it is reliable,
maybe even foolproof (at least for the current generation of fools, who
knows what advances in foolishness the future might bring!).
Tom K
Les, here's a sketch of the basic operation. Most are similar to this, if
the design is above the water line, then there is no chance of flooding .
Make sure the tanks are kept full and the lid is fastened down real good,
its a great system if use properly. Don
http://www.tomah.com/delliott/water%20valve.jpg
the design is above the water line, then there is no chance of flooding .
Make sure the tanks are kept full and the lid is fastened down real good,
its a great system if use properly. Don
http://www.tomah.com/delliott/water%20valve.jpg
----- Original Message -----
From: <pan@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: [bolger] water ballast
> Hi,
> Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or information
> about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
> and how water is let in and out?
> Thanks, Les
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
My Michalak Caprice is a variation on this theme: The plugs in the bottom
of the tanks are the standard 1" transom type. The inspection ports are
Beckson, like Bjørn's. I did add small bilge pumps to the tanks, to make it
possible to empty them in light airs.
Chuck
Les,
I don't know of any web sites that show what you mean. The water ballast
tanks in my boat, the WDJ are of epoxied plywood. To be filled and drained
through ordinary screwed Beckson deck plates (four inches) in the bottom of
the boat. The inspection holes are mounted in a case, four inches higher
than the top of the ballast tank ( to avoid water into the boat if the
plates should leak, I guess). There are two tanks, four openings - total
two in the bottom and two inspection holes.
To fill the tanks: open all four openings. Launch the boat. Wait till the
tanks are full. Close the openings. (I hope it is as simple as that...). To
drain the tanks: open all four openings. Take the boat out of the water and
let the water run out.
Hope this makes sense.
Bjørn
of the tanks are the standard 1" transom type. The inspection ports are
Beckson, like Bjørn's. I did add small bilge pumps to the tanks, to make it
possible to empty them in light airs.
Chuck
Les,
I don't know of any web sites that show what you mean. The water ballast
tanks in my boat, the WDJ are of epoxied plywood. To be filled and drained
through ordinary screwed Beckson deck plates (four inches) in the bottom of
the boat. The inspection holes are mounted in a case, four inches higher
than the top of the ballast tank ( to avoid water into the boat if the
plates should leak, I guess). There are two tanks, four openings - total
two in the bottom and two inspection holes.
To fill the tanks: open all four openings. Launch the boat. Wait till the
tanks are full. Close the openings. (I hope it is as simple as that...). To
drain the tanks: open all four openings. Take the boat out of the water and
let the water run out.
Hope this makes sense.
Bjørn
In a message dated 03/23/2001 10:<BR27:<BR59 AM
Eastern Standard,pan@...writes:
can find it by searching his index page:
<A HREF="http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/">Main Page: Jim
Michalak Indexed</A>
Cheers/Carron
Eastern Standard,pan@...writes:
> Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or informationI believe Jim Michalak had a series on the topic a couple of years back. You
> about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
> and how water is let in and out?
can find it by searching his index page:
<A HREF="http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/">Main Page: Jim
Michalak Indexed</A>
Cheers/Carron
Les,
I don't know of any web sites that show what you mean. The water ballast
tanks in my boat, the WDJ are of epoxied plywood. To be filled and drained
through ordinary screwed Beckson deck plates (four inches) in the bottom of
the boat. The inspection holes are mounted in a case, four inches higher
than the top of the ballast tank ( to avoid water into the boat if the
plates should leak, I guess). There are two tanks, four openings - total
two in the bottom and two inspection holes.
To fill the tanks: open all four openings. Launch the boat. Wait till the
tanks are full. Close the openings. (I hope it is as simple as that...). To
drain the tanks: open all four openings. Take the boat out of the water and
let the water run out.
Hope this makes sense.
Bjørn
-----Original Message-----
From:pan@...[mailto:pan@...]
Sent: 23. mars 2001 15:55
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] water ballast
Hi,
Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or information
about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
and how water is let in and out?
Thanks, Les
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
- no flogging dead horses
- add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
- stay on topic and punctuate
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
Volvatgruppen AS
**********************************************************************
I don't know of any web sites that show what you mean. The water ballast
tanks in my boat, the WDJ are of epoxied plywood. To be filled and drained
through ordinary screwed Beckson deck plates (four inches) in the bottom of
the boat. The inspection holes are mounted in a case, four inches higher
than the top of the ballast tank ( to avoid water into the boat if the
plates should leak, I guess). There are two tanks, four openings - total
two in the bottom and two inspection holes.
To fill the tanks: open all four openings. Launch the boat. Wait till the
tanks are full. Close the openings. (I hope it is as simple as that...). To
drain the tanks: open all four openings. Take the boat out of the water and
let the water run out.
Hope this makes sense.
Bjørn
-----Original Message-----
From:pan@...[mailto:pan@...]
Sent: 23. mars 2001 15:55
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] water ballast
Hi,
Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or information
about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
and how water is let in and out?
Thanks, Les
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
- no flogging dead horses
- add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
- stay on topic and punctuate
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
Volvatgruppen AS
**********************************************************************
Hi,
Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or information
about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
and how water is let in and out?
Thanks, Les
Can anyone point me to a location that shows sketches or information
about how Bolger handles water ballast? How tanks are constructed
and how water is let in and out?
Thanks, Les
Ciao Marco
pippobianc-@...wrote:
more tender when heeling. If I remember well, Dan Gonneau has built his
Long Micro's keel by epoxy gluing lead ingots. If the fit is reasonably
tight, you should'nt have any problem without water ballast
Best
Pippo
pippobianc-@...wrote:
> But if I'll build a Micro Navigator I don't have this problem, Icould use a
> part of the lockers under the berths for ballast of water (like inthe Martha
> J.)keel of
> I in this way could compensate the difference of weight between the
> the plans and a keel with ingots and/ or balls.Such ballast would raise the vertical center of gravity making the boat
> What any do you think?
more tender when heeling. If I remember well, Dan Gonneau has built his
Long Micro's keel by epoxy gluing lead ingots. If the fit is reasonably
tight, you should'nt have any problem without water ballast
Best
Pippo
This is an excellent idea, although I would favor dual tanks and moveable
ballast. Why not under the bunks? Of course, implicit in the idea is that
you reduce the weight of permament ballast to favor the water, which is
never as reliable. Also, the small boat is not going to be as
directionally stable as a big racing boat - i.e. you could wind up with the
water quickly on the wrong side.
I was recently on a water ballasted racing boat - it picked up the water
with a scoop, and a valve allowed the water the fall to the low side just
before tacking.
If your plan was to simply add a false floor and "centerline" water, I
wouldn't think the hassle of constructing the tank is worth it. The c.g.
moves up, the water is lighter than lead, which means a LOT of water to
maintain the same righting moment. The ONLY advantage is light trailer
weight, as the lead keel is easier to build than the tank.
Gregg Carlson
At 01:16 PM 9/5/99 +0200, you wrote:
ballast. Why not under the bunks? Of course, implicit in the idea is that
you reduce the weight of permament ballast to favor the water, which is
never as reliable. Also, the small boat is not going to be as
directionally stable as a big racing boat - i.e. you could wind up with the
water quickly on the wrong side.
I was recently on a water ballasted racing boat - it picked up the water
with a scoop, and a valve allowed the water the fall to the low side just
before tacking.
If your plan was to simply add a false floor and "centerline" water, I
wouldn't think the hassle of constructing the tank is worth it. The c.g.
moves up, the water is lighter than lead, which means a LOT of water to
maintain the same righting moment. The ONLY advantage is light trailer
weight, as the lead keel is easier to build than the tank.
Gregg Carlson
At 01:16 PM 9/5/99 +0200, you wrote:
> ballast of water. would have constituted an excessive encumbrance,
>removing ulterior space to the box of the Micro (already rather low). But
>if I'll build a Micro Navigator I don't have this problem, I could use a
>part of the lockers under the berths for ballast of water (like in the
>Martha J.) I in this way could compensate the difference of weight between
>the keel of the plans and a keel with ingots and/ or balls. What any do you
>think?
> Marco
>
>
> Laboratorio di Psicologia Dott. Masoni
> Piazza Bolivar, 6
> 20146 MILANO - Italy
> Tel. 02-428838
> Fax. 02-47716682
> email:masoni@...
> www.giardino.com/artist/masoni/mason1.html
>
> "Perciò saranno tutte soltanto nomi Le cose che i mortali hanno
>" (Parmenide 8, 38-39)
> eGroups.com home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
I remember having read, last year, an answer of Bernie Wolfard to a
builder that wanted to put a double deep on the bottom of the Micro
for ballast of water.
If I don't remember bad, Bernie answered that would have
constituted an excessive encumbrance, removing ulterior space to the box
of the Micro (already rather low).
But if I'll build a Micro Navigator I don't have this problem, I
could use a part of the lockers under the berths for ballast of water
(like in the Martha J.)
I in this way could compensate the difference of weight between the
keel of the plans and a keel with ingots and/ or balls.
What any do you think?
Marco
Laboratorio di Psicologia Dott. Masoni
Piazza Bolivar, 6
20146 MILANO - Italy
Tel. 02-428838
Fax. 02-47716682
email: masoni@...
www.giardino.com/artist/masoni/mason1.html
"Perciò saranno tutte soltanto nomi Le cose che i mortali hanno
stabilito, persuasi che fossero vere"(Parmenide 8, 38-39)