Re: Concrete Oldshoe Keel
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
PETREL, Mr. Bolger recommends installing an OLDSHOE type keel - to
give more ballest with less draft. But either way will still work.
To me I find his keel design on the MICRO series to be ingenious and
elegant in it's simplicity and effectiveness. I believe that the way
Peter Lenhan built the keel in the traditional manner to be even
better, but a lot more workmanship and time is required, as well as
being more expensive.
I say build it as designed and you will never regret it. Build it
differently than designed and you might! My only modification might
be to add a bit more lead and not have any part of the keel free-
flooding, due to the transportaion of noxious marine life threat.
Cheers, Nels
> The fin keel of the Storm Petrel,Just to keep the record straight - In his latest advice about STORM
> cut from a solid plate of stee, seems to be
> potentially another option to use on Old Shoe,
> Micro, etc.. if you are dead set against the
> melting of lead. [Which isn't really that hard.]
PETREL, Mr. Bolger recommends installing an OLDSHOE type keel - to
give more ballest with less draft. But either way will still work.
To me I find his keel design on the MICRO series to be ingenious and
elegant in it's simplicity and effectiveness. I believe that the way
Peter Lenhan built the keel in the traditional manner to be even
better, but a lot more workmanship and time is required, as well as
being more expensive.
I say build it as designed and you will never regret it. Build it
differently than designed and you might! My only modification might
be to add a bit more lead and not have any part of the keel free-
flooding, due to the transportaion of noxious marine life threat.
Cheers, Nels
> Sam GlasscockPictures of your Sneakeasy please!
> this group is an incredible resource.
Jeff, having fiddled with both the side panel offsets
and the frame drawings, I have concluded that frame 6
is indeed the culprit, and by just the 5/8" you
mention. Built with the 0-7-6 dimension shown would
result in the "hump" that I discovered when I cut my
frames. This is an easy fix. Thanks to all who
helped: this group is an incredible resource. Sam
---boatbuilding@...wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
and the frame drawings, I have concluded that frame 6
is indeed the culprit, and by just the 5/8" you
mention. Built with the 0-7-6 dimension shown would
result in the "hump" that I discovered when I cut my
frames. This is an easy fix. Thanks to all who
helped: this group is an incredible resource. Sam
---boatbuilding@...wrote:
> I just looked at my plans for the Sneakeasy and I__________________________________
> have a
> notation on Frame @ #6. The measurement that shows
> 0.7.6 which
> is the distance for the fore deck crown and should
> be 0.8.3.
>
> This additional 5/8" was recommended by Steve
> Bosquette who I
> believe may have verified with H. Payson. I built
> my Sneakeasy
> to this change and all worked out just fine.
>
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Bolger probably made some changes to the plans after the
original release that H. Payson sells but before the MWAOM was
published.
It shows 0.8.4 on the plans view for the side panels but 0.8.3
for the side panel would be correct to allow for the 1/4 crown
panel.
I'm not sure which is right but on a boat with a 12+ foot nose
on it I would doubt 1/8 inch will make much difference. I
added the 5/8" to the frame and cut the side panels to the plan
specs and it fit together fine.
Jeff
original release that H. Payson sells but before the MWAOM was
published.
It shows 0.8.4 on the plans view for the side panels but 0.8.3
for the side panel would be correct to allow for the 1/4 crown
panel.
I'm not sure which is right but on a boat with a 12+ foot nose
on it I would doubt 1/8 inch will make much difference. I
added the 5/8" to the frame and cut the side panels to the plan
specs and it fit together fine.
Jeff
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:------~->
>> I just looked at my plans for the Sneakeasy and I have a
>> notation on Frame @ #6. The measurement that shows 0.7.6
>> which
>> is the distance for the fore deck crown and should be
>> 0.8.3.
>
> It's 0-8-3 on the drawing of the side panels, as shown in
> BWAOM.
>
> Howard
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads.
> Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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.comYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
Howard
> I just looked at my plans for the Sneakeasy and I have aIt's 0-8-3 on the drawing of the side panels, as shown in BWAOM.
> notation on Frame @ #6. The measurement that shows 0.7.6 which
> is the distance for the fore deck crown and should be 0.8.3.
Howard
I just looked at my plans for the Sneakeasy and I have a
notation on Frame @ #6. The measurement that shows 0.7.6 which
is the distance for the fore deck crown and should be 0.8.3.
This additional 5/8" was recommended by Steve Bosquette who I
believe may have verified with H. Payson. I built my Sneakeasy
to this change and all worked out just fine.
The frames are generally 1/4 longer than the side panels to
accept the top crown panel. Don't change that or you have a
flared seam at the chine.
This biggest problem with the frames for the crown top is
getting the radius done right. Take your time and double and
triple check your results. I had to rebuild the Frame @ #4
because when I assembled it was not right. After checking, I
had cut the radius wrong. Once corrected the plywood shaped up
nicely. I used 2 layers of 1/8" luan for the front section
from Frame @ #4 forward. It made things much easier.
Jeff
notation on Frame @ #6. The measurement that shows 0.7.6 which
is the distance for the fore deck crown and should be 0.8.3.
This additional 5/8" was recommended by Steve Bosquette who I
believe may have verified with H. Payson. I built my Sneakeasy
to this change and all worked out just fine.
The frames are generally 1/4 longer than the side panels to
accept the top crown panel. Don't change that or you have a
flared seam at the chine.
This biggest problem with the frames for the crown top is
getting the radius done right. Take your time and double and
triple check your results. I had to rebuild the Frame @ #4
because when I assembled it was not right. After checking, I
had cut the radius wrong. Once corrected the plywood shaped up
nicely. I used 2 layers of 1/8" luan for the front section
from Frame @ #4 forward. It made things much easier.
Jeff
Sam, one thing to try is to use an architect scale
to measure the height of the bulkheads on the 'scale' drawing,
and compare these to the dimensions written on the drawings.
[and to your 'full size' scale model]
When they do not match, then you know where to start investigating.
to measure the height of the bulkheads on the 'scale' drawing,
and compare these to the dimensions written on the drawings.
[and to your 'full size' scale model]
When they do not match, then you know where to start investigating.
Sam,
The circles whose raduises (radii?) are shown are not necessarily
centred at the bottom. In fact they are at differing distances above
or below the bottom. As I've described, the height of the crown is
shown in the drawing of the side panels.
Now, as you say, the vertical dimension from inside bottom to sheer
are shown in the drawings of the frames. For each frame this distance
should be the difference between the baseline-to-sheer and baseline-
to-bottom dimensions shown on the plan. For the frame at stn.2, the
two seem to agree, but there seems to be an error with the other two
frames. My guess is that the drawings and the dimensions shown on the
side panels are correct, but PCB miscalculated the two vertical
dimensions. (It's so much easier in metric).
The drawings are to scale, so you should be able to check this easily
enough. It's possible that either: a) others noticed this but didn't
report it or b) they cut the sides out first, then measured the
vertical distance off the plywood to get the vertical frame
dimension. It's not unknown for errors of this nature (if it is one)
to go unnoticed even after several buildings from the same plan.
If you confirm it's an error, I hope someone will report it to PCB
for us.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@y...>
wrote:
The circles whose raduises (radii?) are shown are not necessarily
centred at the bottom. In fact they are at differing distances above
or below the bottom. As I've described, the height of the crown is
shown in the drawing of the side panels.
Now, as you say, the vertical dimension from inside bottom to sheer
are shown in the drawings of the frames. For each frame this distance
should be the difference between the baseline-to-sheer and baseline-
to-bottom dimensions shown on the plan. For the frame at stn.2, the
two seem to agree, but there seems to be an error with the other two
frames. My guess is that the drawings and the dimensions shown on the
side panels are correct, but PCB miscalculated the two vertical
dimensions. (It's so much easier in metric).
The drawings are to scale, so you should be able to check this easily
enough. It's possible that either: a) others noticed this but didn't
report it or b) they cut the sides out first, then measured the
vertical distance off the plywood to get the vertical frame
dimension. It's not unknown for errors of this nature (if it is one)
to go unnoticed even after several buildings from the same plan.
If you confirm it's an error, I hope someone will report it to PCB
for us.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@y...>
wrote:
> Howard, I am building the original.
> The expanded hull sides do match up with the frames,
> as you say. This is the bottom-to-sheer dimension.
> What I am talking about is the height of the crown of
> the deck above the sheer. This is defined on my plans
> as both absolute vertical distance above the sheer,
> and by giving the radius described by the crown from
> sheer to sheer at each station. The deck projection
> above the sheer at the crown varies from the thickness
> of the plywood (at the stem) to several inches (at the
> aft end of the bow deck. It is the crown of the deck
> that I can't get to a straight line, using the
> dimensions on the frame plans. You are correct that
> the baseline of the sides is also the crown line, and
> I could always simply use that dimesion to set the top
> of frames/deck-beams. I don't understand why the
> dimensions don't come out--as I say, I am misreading
> (or mis-adding)something.
Howard, I am building the original.
The expanded hull sides do match up with the frames,
as you say. This is the bottom-to-sheer dimension.
What I am talking about is the height of the crown of
the deck above the sheer. This is defined on my plans
as both absolute vertical distance above the sheer,
and by giving the radius described by the crown from
sheer to sheer at each station. The deck projection
above the sheer at the crown varies from the thickness
of the plywood (at the stem) to several inches (at the
aft end of the bow deck. It is the crown of the deck
that I can't get to a straight line, using the
dimensions on the frame plans. You are correct that
the baseline of the sides is also the crown line, and
I could always simply use that dimesion to set the top
of frames/deck-beams. I don't understand why the
dimensions don't come out--as I say, I am misreading
(or mis-adding)something.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The expanded hull sides do match up with the frames,
as you say. This is the bottom-to-sheer dimension.
What I am talking about is the height of the crown of
the deck above the sheer. This is defined on my plans
as both absolute vertical distance above the sheer,
and by giving the radius described by the crown from
sheer to sheer at each station. The deck projection
above the sheer at the crown varies from the thickness
of the plywood (at the stem) to several inches (at the
aft end of the bow deck. It is the crown of the deck
that I can't get to a straight line, using the
dimensions on the frame plans. You are correct that
the baseline of the sides is also the crown line, and
I could always simply use that dimesion to set the top
of frames/deck-beams. I don't understand why the
dimensions don't come out--as I say, I am misreading
(or mis-adding)something.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
> The plans drawn in BWAOM show something quite__________________________________
> different.
>
> For the original, square-bottomed hull, he shows a
> drawing of the
> expanded hull side, marking it "expanded hull sides
> true shape no
> deductions". Vertical measurements are shown at 2'
> intervals, down
> from a baseline. There is a series of measurements
> that define the
> sheer and series that defines he bottom. The
> baseline is of course
> horizontal and meets the vertical stem. At the
> centreline, the deck
> would project above this baseline by the thickness
> of plywood used.
> So the frame heights, if you were going to put them
> at the places
> where the measurements are given, would be the
> difference between the
> two numbers. I can see no anomaly in these two
> series of numbers.
>
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Gee that was 9 months ago when I built the front section but I seem to remember Steve Bosquette (sp?) sending me an email on a plan correction he found when he built his Sneakeasy. Mine went together just fine so maybe I made a note on the plans. I'll look tonight.
Jeff
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Glasscock
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: [bolger] Sneakeasy question
As I look at the plans for Sneakeasy it seems clear
that the crown of the bow deck is designed to be
horizontal fore-and-aft. The crown is formed by
bending ply over deck beams installed as part of the
forward three frames, which sit flush on the inside
bottom of the hull. In order for the crown to be
horizontal, the height (above the bottom)of each
frame/deck-beam piece must be the same as the one
immediately forward (plus any additional amount
require to compensate for the rocker which lifts the
foremost frame above the others). Bolger gives the
height of the frame from chine to deck, plus the
additional height of the crown, but when I add the two
figures I get a number which would put a "hump" in the
deck over frame 4.
I know this boat has been built many times and I am
plainly missing something obvious. Can anyone set me
straight? Thanks, Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Generally, the cheapest lead I have been able to find for other projcts has
been used tire balancing weights... go to a couple of auto repair joints,
preferably mom-and-pop type placed, not the big chains who all have
recycling plans, and talk to the owner/manager. I needed some for a buddy's
sailboat, and in three months we had collected about 2500# from six places.
I think that it has high antimony content, or something of the sort, so it's
pretty hard and you certainly want to wear protective gear, but all it cost
us was gas to drive to the repair places and labor to carry around the
containers of lead.
--Gabe
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Derby [mailto:derbyrm@...]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:08 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Concrete Oldshoe Keel
I've read where people were able to get lead cheap (free?) from the X-ray
department of their local hospital. It is packaging used for shipping
low-level radioactive material, and it is NOT radioactive itself.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
been used tire balancing weights... go to a couple of auto repair joints,
preferably mom-and-pop type placed, not the big chains who all have
recycling plans, and talk to the owner/manager. I needed some for a buddy's
sailboat, and in three months we had collected about 2500# from six places.
I think that it has high antimony content, or something of the sort, so it's
pretty hard and you certainly want to wear protective gear, but all it cost
us was gas to drive to the repair places and labor to carry around the
containers of lead.
--Gabe
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Derby [mailto:derbyrm@...]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:08 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Concrete Oldshoe Keel
I've read where people were able to get lead cheap (free?) from the X-ray
department of their local hospital. It is packaging used for shipping
low-level radioactive material, and it is NOT radioactive itself.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "grant corson" <corson@...>
> Grant, hunting for lead shot in Vermont (USA)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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
The plans drawn in BWAOM show something quite different.
For the original, square-bottomed hull, he shows a drawing of the
expanded hull side, marking it "expanded hull sides true shape no
deductions". Vertical measurements are shown at 2' intervals, down
from a baseline. There is a series of measurements that define the
sheer and series that defines he bottom. The baseline is of course
horizontal and meets the vertical stem. At the centreline, the deck
would project above this baseline by the thickness of plywood used.
So the frame heights, if you were going to put them at the places
where the measurements are given, would be the difference between the
two numbers. I can see no anomaly in these two series of numbers.
The step-chine version does not show the expanded panel shape, but a
series of offsets at 2' intervals i.e. 2' spacing along the
centreline, vs. 2' spacing around the curved side in the original
version.
At these stations, he gives a series of measurements down from a
baseline, defining the sheer, chine and bottom. Forward, he calls
this baseline the deck centreline. So, in this case, there would need
to be a deduction for the thickness of ply. Once again, I can find no
anomaly in these series.
I can give you the numbers if you need them.
Howard--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock
<glasscocklanding@y...> wrote:
For the original, square-bottomed hull, he shows a drawing of the
expanded hull side, marking it "expanded hull sides true shape no
deductions". Vertical measurements are shown at 2' intervals, down
from a baseline. There is a series of measurements that define the
sheer and series that defines he bottom. The baseline is of course
horizontal and meets the vertical stem. At the centreline, the deck
would project above this baseline by the thickness of plywood used.
So the frame heights, if you were going to put them at the places
where the measurements are given, would be the difference between the
two numbers. I can see no anomaly in these two series of numbers.
The step-chine version does not show the expanded panel shape, but a
series of offsets at 2' intervals i.e. 2' spacing along the
centreline, vs. 2' spacing around the curved side in the original
version.
At these stations, he gives a series of measurements down from a
baseline, defining the sheer, chine and bottom. Forward, he calls
this baseline the deck centreline. So, in this case, there would need
to be a deduction for the thickness of ply. Once again, I can find no
anomaly in these series.
I can give you the numbers if you need them.
Howard--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock
<glasscocklanding@y...> wrote:
> As I look at the plans for Sneakeasy it seems clear
> that the crown of the bow deck is designed to be
> horizontal fore-and-aft. The crown is formed by
> bending ply over deck beams installed as part of the
> forward three frames, which sit flush on the inside
> bottom of the hull. In order for the crown to be
> horizontal, the height (above the bottom)of each
> frame/deck-beam piece must be the same as the one
> immediately forward (plus any additional amount
> require to compensate for the rocker which lifts the
> foremost frame above the others). Bolger gives the
> height of the frame from chine to deck, plus the
> additional height of the crown, but when I add the two
> figures I get a number which would put a "hump" in the
> deck over frame 4.
> I know this boat has been built many times and I am
> plainly missing something obvious. Can anyone set me
> straight? Thanks, Sam
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
I've read where people were able to get lead cheap (free?) from the X-ray
department of their local hospital. It is packaging used for shipping
low-level radioactive material, and it is NOT radioactive itself.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
department of their local hospital. It is packaging used for shipping
low-level radioactive material, and it is NOT radioactive itself.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "grant corson" <corson@...>
> Grant, hunting for lead shot in Vermont (USA)
True we do get bonus lead shot with our liquor purchases, about 5 pounds
with every bottle but we use it to load our own shells for our AK 47s and
Uzzis and such so have precious little let over for keels. For keels we are
forced to dig the lead out of trees, lifeless bodies and such, labor
intensive but cheap ;-)
Grant, hunting for lead shot in Vermont (USA)
on 9/20/04 3:38 PM, dbaldnz atoink@...wrote:
with every bottle but we use it to load our own shells for our AK 47s and
Uzzis and such so have precious little let over for keels. For keels we are
forced to dig the lead out of trees, lifeless bodies and such, labor
intensive but cheap ;-)
Grant, hunting for lead shot in Vermont (USA)
on 9/20/04 3:38 PM, dbaldnz atoink@...wrote:
>
> I did mine in epoxy lead shot without any problems at all. About 3
> pours I guess, and no great heat.
> It's a very easy way to do it, but quite expensive.
> Except perhaps in the USA where they get bonus leadshot with their
> liquor purchases.
> DonB
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, fountainb@s... wrote:
>> Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded in epoxy -
>>
>> John B. Trussell wrote:
>>> Large amounts of epoxy can generate substantial amounts
>>> of heat when it "kicks". If you are going this route,
>>> do it outside and keep a hose handy!
>>
>> I am not speaking from experience, but I would expect all
>> that embedded lead to act as a huge heat sink. I doubt
>> that the heat generated by the epoxy would cause the
>> temperature to reach dangerous levels. Then again, I have
>> never tried it...
>>
>> Bruce Fountain
>> Systems Engineer
>> Union Switch & Signal
>> Perth, Western Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Except perhaps in the USA whereThat is only in Texas.
> they get bonus leadshot with their
> liquor purchases.
> DonB
[seriously now]
I have heard of two good cheap sources for lead,
used wheel balance weights from tire shops [often free]
and I have also heard that the recycle yards sometimes
have melted lead from car batteries, and if you mount
your ballast mold in the bed of your pickup truck, they
will pour the lead for you directly in your truck.
As I look at the plans for Sneakeasy it seems clear
that the crown of the bow deck is designed to be
horizontal fore-and-aft. The crown is formed by
bending ply over deck beams installed as part of the
forward three frames, which sit flush on the inside
bottom of the hull. In order for the crown to be
horizontal, the height (above the bottom)of each
frame/deck-beam piece must be the same as the one
immediately forward (plus any additional amount
require to compensate for the rocker which lifts the
foremost frame above the others). Bolger gives the
height of the frame from chine to deck, plus the
additional height of the crown, but when I add the two
figures I get a number which would put a "hump" in the
deck over frame 4.
I know this boat has been built many times and I am
plainly missing something obvious. Can anyone set me
straight? Thanks, Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
that the crown of the bow deck is designed to be
horizontal fore-and-aft. The crown is formed by
bending ply over deck beams installed as part of the
forward three frames, which sit flush on the inside
bottom of the hull. In order for the crown to be
horizontal, the height (above the bottom)of each
frame/deck-beam piece must be the same as the one
immediately forward (plus any additional amount
require to compensate for the rocker which lifts the
foremost frame above the others). Bolger gives the
height of the frame from chine to deck, plus the
additional height of the crown, but when I add the two
figures I get a number which would put a "hump" in the
deck over frame 4.
I know this boat has been built many times and I am
plainly missing something obvious. Can anyone set me
straight? Thanks, Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I did mine in epoxy lead shot without any problems at all. About 3
pours I guess, and no great heat.
It's a very easy way to do it, but quite expensive.
Except perhaps in the USA where they get bonus leadshot with their
liquor purchases.
DonB
pours I guess, and no great heat.
It's a very easy way to do it, but quite expensive.
Except perhaps in the USA where they get bonus leadshot with their
liquor purchases.
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, fountainb@s... wrote:
> Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded in epoxy -
>
> John B. Trussell wrote:
> > Large amounts of epoxy can generate substantial amounts
> > of heat when it "kicks". If you are going this route,
> > do it outside and keep a hose handy!
>
> I am not speaking from experience, but I would expect all
> that embedded lead to act as a huge heat sink. I doubt
> that the heat generated by the epoxy would cause the
> temperature to reach dangerous levels. Then again, I have
> never tried it...
>
> Bruce Fountain
> Systems Engineer
> Union Switch & Signal
> Perth, Western Australia
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Won't "well shaken" result in the big ones coming to the top? (like
boulders in a field, the fines wiggle in underneath as the big one rocks)
I don't think melting and pouring the lead is that tough or dangerous.
Molten steel would be a very different case, but lead is just like soldering
an electrical connection, but on a bigger scale; and the satisfaction when
you're done is tremendous. (OK, it took me several tries and I should have
had a top form with a sprue and vents, and it was only 18 lbs, but ... )
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
boulders in a field, the fines wiggle in underneath as the big one rocks)
I don't think melting and pouring the lead is that tough or dangerous.
Molten steel would be a very different case, but lead is just like soldering
an electrical connection, but on a bigger scale; and the satisfaction when
you're done is tremendous. (OK, it took me several tries and I should have
had a top form with a sprue and vents, and it was only 18 lbs, but ... )
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Samson" <willsamson@...>
> The optimal packing of spheres is a very difficult mathematical problem.
Whatever you do, you'll not get the density of solid lead, but with a good
mix spheres of different sizes, well shaken before adding the cement or
epoxy, you should be able to approach it to within around 75% or so.
> Bill
The optimal packing of spheres is a very difficult mathematical problem. Whatever you do, you'll not get the density of solid lead, but with a good mix spheres of different sizes, well shaken before adding the cement or epoxy, you should be able to approach it to within around 75% or so.
Bill
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene T.
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Concrete Oldshoe Keel
Speaking of Lead packing down..... There should be
advantage to mixing sizes of shot from very small to a
reasonable size. The smaller shot fills the voids
left between the larget shot. This should raise the
density and further reduce epoxy.
Any thoughts on using the shot mixed in cement in
place of the gravel. Cheaper and heavier than epoxy.
The fine cement powder would fill the small voids
around the smallest shot. Using an Acrylic additive
instead of water could give back some of the strength
of epoxy. Our even use cement based epoxy adhesive
for ceramic tile as the cement for the shot.
Gene T.
--- Jason Stancil <jasonstancil@...> wrote:
> > Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded
> in epoxy -
> the lead packs down dense.
> Jason
>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Jason,
My Micro keel lead shot packed in about 50% tops, less than I
expected. I increase the planform of the ballast about 25-30%,
expecting about a 70% pack, and left up with a quarter of the shot
remaining. I couldn't do much about it, as I cast it in the
upside-down hull rather than flat on the floor. I ended up adding a
long steel shoe along the bottom of the keel, which was pretty nice in
the end.
I guess if I *hadn't* been a grad student, too, I would have spent
more time with coffee cans of shot than a pencil and paper ;-}
Did you get in enough lead? Maybe the idea of mixing shot size is a
good one.
Gregg Carlson
My Micro keel lead shot packed in about 50% tops, less than I
expected. I increase the planform of the ballast about 25-30%,
expecting about a 70% pack, and left up with a quarter of the shot
remaining. I couldn't do much about it, as I cast it in the
upside-down hull rather than flat on the floor. I ended up adding a
long steel shoe along the bottom of the keel, which was pretty nice in
the end.
I guess if I *hadn't* been a grad student, too, I would have spent
more time with coffee cans of shot than a pencil and paper ;-}
Did you get in enough lead? Maybe the idea of mixing shot size is a
good one.
Gregg Carlson
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...> wrote:
> I've seen my left over epoxy cups smoldering so i was a little
> worried. My lead shot was sitting on a cold concrete slab prior to
> the pour.....not sure if that made a difference. I was working on my
> thesis for the day and would walk down and pour a bag with a bit of
> raka slow, one every hour or so(25 lbs. per pop). it got warm but
> never smoking hot.....it was a cool day too. It doesn't take that
> much epoxy, the lead packs down dense.
> Jason
>
> PS. boat is on hold as the hurricanes are dumping rain all over WV
> the rivers are kicking, basement is flooded and it's Gauley season
> so i'm on the r
> Gene T.Googling it, I see that the packing of
> Speaking of Lead packing down.....
spheres get down around 70% of the
density of a solid. Which is better than
I had guessed.
The fin keel of the Storm Petrel,
cut from a solid plate of stee, seems to be
potentially another option to use on Old Shoe,
Micro, etc.. if you are dead set against the
melting of lead. [Which isn't really that hard.]
Speaking of Lead packing down..... There should be
advantage to mixing sizes of shot from very small to a
reasonable size. The smaller shot fills the voids
left between the larget shot. This should raise the
density and further reduce epoxy.
Any thoughts on using the shot mixed in cement in
place of the gravel. Cheaper and heavier than epoxy.
The fine cement powder would fill the small voids
around the smallest shot. Using an Acrylic additive
instead of water could give back some of the strength
of epoxy. Our even use cement based epoxy adhesive
for ceramic tile as the cement for the shot.
Gene T.
--- Jason Stancil <jasonstancil@...> wrote:
advantage to mixing sizes of shot from very small to a
reasonable size. The smaller shot fills the voids
left between the larget shot. This should raise the
density and further reduce epoxy.
Any thoughts on using the shot mixed in cement in
place of the gravel. Cheaper and heavier than epoxy.
The fine cement powder would fill the small voids
around the smallest shot. Using an Acrylic additive
instead of water could give back some of the strength
of epoxy. Our even use cement based epoxy adhesive
for ceramic tile as the cement for the shot.
Gene T.
--- Jason Stancil <jasonstancil@...> wrote:
> > Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded
> in epoxy -
> the lead packs down dense.
> Jason
>
> Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded in epoxy -***********************************
>
> John B. Trussell wrote:
> > Large amounts of epoxy can generate substantial amounts
> > of heat when it "kicks". If you are going this route,
> > do it outside and keep a hose handy!
>
> I am not speaking from experience, but I would expect all
> that embedded lead to act as a huge heat sink.
I've seen my left over epoxy cups smoldering so i was a little
worried. My lead shot was sitting on a cold concrete slab prior to
the pour.....not sure if that made a difference. I was working on my
thesis for the day and would walk down and pour a bag with a bit of
raka slow, one every hour or so(25 lbs. per pop). it got warm but
never smoking hot.....it was a cool day too. It doesn't take that
much epoxy, the lead packs down dense.
Jason
PS. boat is on hold as the hurricanes are dumping rain all over WV
the rivers are kicking, basement is flooded and it's Gauley season
so i'm on the river playing till october.......maybe i'll finish it
in november......Doh!
Regarding building a keel from lead shot embedded in epoxy -
John B. Trussell wrote:
that embedded lead to act as a huge heat sink. I doubt
that the heat generated by the epoxy would cause the
temperature to reach dangerous levels. Then again, I have
never tried it...
Bruce Fountain
Systems Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
John B. Trussell wrote:
> Large amounts of epoxy can generate substantial amountsI am not speaking from experience, but I would expect all
> of heat when it "kicks". If you are going this route,
> do it outside and keep a hose handy!
that embedded lead to act as a huge heat sink. I doubt
that the heat generated by the epoxy would cause the
temperature to reach dangerous levels. Then again, I have
never tried it...
Bruce Fountain
Systems Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hey, you two prospective Oldshoe builders. Don't get spooked by the
keel. I found the keel one of the easier things to do and very
gratifying. The only reason mine is still in the basement and not on
the boat is i'm waiting for the the ups man to bring another truck
load of epoxy (damn, i know the guy on a first name bases now).
Seriously, the way i look at it is the oldshoe keel is only 50% of
the micro's...it'll come together just fine. Go for it, and post a
bunch of pictures!
Jason
keel. I found the keel one of the easier things to do and very
gratifying. The only reason mine is still in the basement and not on
the boat is i'm waiting for the the ups man to bring another truck
load of epoxy (damn, i know the guy on a first name bases now).
Seriously, the way i look at it is the oldshoe keel is only 50% of
the micro's...it'll come together just fine. Go for it, and post a
bunch of pictures!
Jason
here's another 2 cents worth on moving and attaching a lead keel. I removed
a 1000 lb lead keel from my sailboat by removing the nuts from the keel
bolts and then waiting for almost a week for gravity to separate the keel
from the boat as it was installed with 5200. The keel finally fell off the
boat. I cut it down length wise (used my skil saw, went right through
stainless steel bolts) to reduce it's height from 16 inches down to 8 1/4
inches as the boat was to become a displacement hull cruiser and no longer
function as a sail boat. I agonized all winter about how in the world I
would be able to move a now 600 lb. keel across my lawn to where the boat
now stood, get it into place, jack it up to position under the boat, align
the 5 keel bolts and slather on the 5200 and raise it to contact with the
boat and bolt it in place........... well it couldn't have been easier, a
couple of planks to move it on, roll it into place on dowels cut from a
broom handle , pull it with a come-a-long, tweak it with a pry bar and jack
it up with a small hydralic jack. Much to my surprise it was a one man job
done with a little patience (very hard to come by in my case) a little
thoughtfulness and only one mornings work, with several breaks to consider
what and how I was doing. Worried all winter and it couldn't have been
easier. My 2 cents, don't worry, just do it.
Grant, cruising on beautiful Lake Champlain
on 9/18/04 11:35 AM, debnjonf atdebnjonf@...wrote:
a 1000 lb lead keel from my sailboat by removing the nuts from the keel
bolts and then waiting for almost a week for gravity to separate the keel
from the boat as it was installed with 5200. The keel finally fell off the
boat. I cut it down length wise (used my skil saw, went right through
stainless steel bolts) to reduce it's height from 16 inches down to 8 1/4
inches as the boat was to become a displacement hull cruiser and no longer
function as a sail boat. I agonized all winter about how in the world I
would be able to move a now 600 lb. keel across my lawn to where the boat
now stood, get it into place, jack it up to position under the boat, align
the 5 keel bolts and slather on the 5200 and raise it to contact with the
boat and bolt it in place........... well it couldn't have been easier, a
couple of planks to move it on, roll it into place on dowels cut from a
broom handle , pull it with a come-a-long, tweak it with a pry bar and jack
it up with a small hydralic jack. Much to my surprise it was a one man job
done with a little patience (very hard to come by in my case) a little
thoughtfulness and only one mornings work, with several breaks to consider
what and how I was doing. Worried all winter and it couldn't have been
easier. My 2 cents, don't worry, just do it.
Grant, cruising on beautiful Lake Champlain
on 9/18/04 11:35 AM, debnjonf atdebnjonf@...wrote:
> My 2 cents -
>
> I also have the Old Shoe plans, and am contemplating the build. The
> keel pour doesn't scare me as much as getting it attached. I ordered
> a CD from Duckworks that contained an archived article "Bill's
> Oldshoe Report" by Bill Nicolay. In it he describes how he built his
> boat and keel. Here's an excerpt:
>
> "Oldshoe Photo - Keel Assembly
>
> The profile of the rebate/chine line was lofted to get the shape of
> the lower edge of the cockpit sides and the keel sides which were
> then made as subassemblies.
> The lead ballast casting was made (pouring the lead was an adventure
> all its own).
> The keel assembly with the lead installed was completed and
> sheathed.
>
> The completed keel assembly containing the lead casting and rudder
> post has been sheathed with polyester cloth and epoxy resin and is
> sitting in front of the hull ...The keel assembly fits over a 1.5"
> square stringer that is firmly attached to the bottom of the hull.
> This is not the way the plans describe the assembly of the keel to
> the hull. The hull was jacked up on blocks. The keel was rolled
> underneath the hull. The hull was lowered onto the keel assembly and
> held in place with epoxy and bronze nails. A large epoxy fillet was
> also added to the joint."
>
> The article has some nice pictures of the completed boat and some of
> the construction steps. Not sure it's appropriate to post a copy,
> but will check.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Jon Freeman
> Kent, WA
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
> <robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
>> One of the reasons I hesitate to start building the Oldshoe, I've
> had the plans for a while, is the lead keel. I've been doing some
> calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are
> that the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the
> 1/4" sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3
> (144 lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete
> to get a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2"
> thickness issue by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The
> concrete keel would be a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy
> to reinforce. With the sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be
> simple to waterproof. Most of all it would be a lot safer. The
> plans already provide the side forms for such a keel. Does anyone
> see any problems with this idea? Nautical or otherwise?
>> Robert
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
My 2 cents -
I also have the Old Shoe plans, and am contemplating the build. The
keel pour doesn't scare me as much as getting it attached. I ordered
a CD from Duckworks that contained an archived article "Bill's
Oldshoe Report" by Bill Nicolay. In it he describes how he built his
boat and keel. Here's an excerpt:
"Oldshoe Photo - Keel Assembly
The profile of the rebate/chine line was lofted to get the shape of
the lower edge of the cockpit sides and the keel sides which were
then made as subassemblies.
The lead ballast casting was made (pouring the lead was an adventure
all its own).
The keel assembly with the lead installed was completed and
sheathed.
The completed keel assembly containing the lead casting and rudder
post has been sheathed with polyester cloth and epoxy resin and is
sitting in front of the hull ...The keel assembly fits over a 1.5"
square stringer that is firmly attached to the bottom of the hull.
This is not the way the plans describe the assembly of the keel to
the hull. The hull was jacked up on blocks. The keel was rolled
underneath the hull. The hull was lowered onto the keel assembly and
held in place with epoxy and bronze nails. A large epoxy fillet was
also added to the joint."
The article has some nice pictures of the completed boat and some of
the construction steps. Not sure it's appropriate to post a copy,
but will check.
Hope this helps.
Jon Freeman
Kent, WA
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are
that the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the
1/4" sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3
(144 lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete
to get a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2"
thickness issue by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The
concrete keel would be a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy
to reinforce. With the sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be
simple to waterproof. Most of all it would be a lot safer. The
plans already provide the side forms for such a keel. Does anyone
see any problems with this idea? Nautical or otherwise?
I also have the Old Shoe plans, and am contemplating the build. The
keel pour doesn't scare me as much as getting it attached. I ordered
a CD from Duckworks that contained an archived article "Bill's
Oldshoe Report" by Bill Nicolay. In it he describes how he built his
boat and keel. Here's an excerpt:
"Oldshoe Photo - Keel Assembly
The profile of the rebate/chine line was lofted to get the shape of
the lower edge of the cockpit sides and the keel sides which were
then made as subassemblies.
The lead ballast casting was made (pouring the lead was an adventure
all its own).
The keel assembly with the lead installed was completed and
sheathed.
The completed keel assembly containing the lead casting and rudder
post has been sheathed with polyester cloth and epoxy resin and is
sitting in front of the hull ...The keel assembly fits over a 1.5"
square stringer that is firmly attached to the bottom of the hull.
This is not the way the plans describe the assembly of the keel to
the hull. The hull was jacked up on blocks. The keel was rolled
underneath the hull. The hull was lowered onto the keel assembly and
held in place with epoxy and bronze nails. A large epoxy fillet was
also added to the joint."
The article has some nice pictures of the completed boat and some of
the construction steps. Not sure it's appropriate to post a copy,
but will check.
Hope this helps.
Jon Freeman
Kent, WA
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
> One of the reasons I hesitate to start building the Oldshoe, I'vehad the plans for a while, is the lead keel. I've been doing some
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are
that the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the
1/4" sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3
(144 lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete
to get a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2"
thickness issue by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The
concrete keel would be a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy
to reinforce. With the sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be
simple to waterproof. Most of all it would be a lot safer. The
plans already provide the side forms for such a keel. Does anyone
see any problems with this idea? Nautical or otherwise?
> Robert
John B. Trussell wrote:
NOT MIX! (capitals intentional). Putting a hose on any significant
quantity of molten lead will cause a steam explosion and the lead will
fly everywhere, probably onto/into you and incidentally having the
potential to start many more small fires. It's like having a small
volcano erupt in your back yard.
Buckets of sand are a much safer way of putting out molten metal fires,
make sure you have several handy. The hose could be useful if you set
anything else alight, but make sure whoever's using it is aware of the
potential hazards.
Dan
> Molten metal terrifies me, but I have, with great caution and protective gear (boots, apron, gloves, and goggles) poured moderate amounts of lead.It should definitely be pointed out here that water and molten metal DO
> Fire and noxious fumes are concerns, so do it outside, keep a hose handy, and have someone handy who can call 911 if it all goes to Hell.
NOT MIX! (capitals intentional). Putting a hose on any significant
quantity of molten lead will cause a steam explosion and the lead will
fly everywhere, probably onto/into you and incidentally having the
potential to start many more small fires. It's like having a small
volcano erupt in your back yard.
Buckets of sand are a much safer way of putting out molten metal fires,
make sure you have several handy. The hose could be useful if you set
anything else alight, but make sure whoever's using it is aware of the
potential hazards.
Dan
Large amounts of epoxy can generate substantial amounts of heat when it "kicks". If you are going this route, do it outside and keep a hose handy!
Molten metal terrifies me, but I have, with great caution and protective gear (boots, apron, gloves, and goggles) poured moderate amounts of lead. Fire and noxious fumes are concerns, so do it outside, keep a hose handy, and have someone handy who can call 911 if it all goes to Hell.
Bolger recommends concrete and metal ballast on his Freindship Sloop, Monhegan. He indicates that the concrete will preserve the shape of the boat, provide a solid bottom in the event of grounding, and indicates that the ballast can be poured with the boat afloat and and the concrete can be distributed to trim the boat (probably the last can't be done with an Old Shoe).
One other possibility is to pour lead "bricks" and epoxy/ screw the bricks inside the keel.
John T
Molten metal terrifies me, but I have, with great caution and protective gear (boots, apron, gloves, and goggles) poured moderate amounts of lead. Fire and noxious fumes are concerns, so do it outside, keep a hose handy, and have someone handy who can call 911 if it all goes to Hell.
Bolger recommends concrete and metal ballast on his Freindship Sloop, Monhegan. He indicates that the concrete will preserve the shape of the boat, provide a solid bottom in the event of grounding, and indicates that the ballast can be poured with the boat afloat and and the concrete can be distributed to trim the boat (probably the last can't be done with an Old Shoe).
One other possibility is to pour lead "bricks" and epoxy/ screw the bricks inside the keel.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Stancil
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:01 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Concrete Oldshoe Keel
Hey guys a think a happy medium between the lead pour and the
concrete is the lead shot method. Don did it as did some folks in
the real old CSD newsletters i found posted somewhere ....as did i.
Density wise don said he came up a bit short and put some steel bars
under the sole. I also think his keel is a bit fat to try and
compensate. Maybe he'll fess up.
Since i have the complete inability to follow directions i moved my
deadwood up rights forward and aft a bit and poured
away....425lbs....17 bags of #9 hard chilled shot and not that much
epoxy......its solid(i mixwd up and dumped in one bag at a time). As
far as shifting the weight for and aft i don't think it's a problem
as i've got no mizzen out back, my motor is teeny and my mast is 2'
aft of what bolger drew it on the upgrade. Besides it kept me from
stealing a watering trough from the farmer up the road ;)
Still have to get that beast out of the garage up the hill and under
the boat and then attached......i was thinking about filleting and
taping it in place but maybe that's why the whole shebang weighs so
much......i just know how often i ram things on the water.
Let me say to you two oldshoe builders, you're going to dig it. I've
had a good time. The micro is huge for her size if i would have know
this when i started i would have built the old shoe with a paradox
style house(once again can't follow directions). I had the plans for
both but Don and Bruce sold me on there dang fine navigators.
Jason
PS thinks for the help on the sheathing questions.....still can't
find my key.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hey guys a think a happy medium between the lead pour and the
concrete is the lead shot method. Don did it as did some folks in
the real old CSD newsletters i found posted somewhere ....as did i.
Density wise don said he came up a bit short and put some steel bars
under the sole. I also think his keel is a bit fat to try and
compensate. Maybe he'll fess up.
Since i have the complete inability to follow directions i moved my
deadwood up rights forward and aft a bit and poured
away....425lbs....17 bags of #9 hard chilled shot and not that much
epoxy......its solid(i mixwd up and dumped in one bag at a time). As
far as shifting the weight for and aft i don't think it's a problem
as i've got no mizzen out back, my motor is teeny and my mast is 2'
aft of what bolger drew it on the upgrade. Besides it kept me from
stealing a watering trough from the farmer up the road ;)
Still have to get that beast out of the garage up the hill and under
the boat and then attached......i was thinking about filleting and
taping it in place but maybe that's why the whole shebang weighs so
much......i just know how often i ram things on the water.
Let me say to you two oldshoe builders, you're going to dig it. I've
had a good time. The micro is huge for her size if i would have know
this when i started i would have built the old shoe with a paradox
style house(once again can't follow directions). I had the plans for
both but Don and Bruce sold me on there dang fine navigators.
Jason
PS thinks for the help on the sheathing questions.....still can't
find my key.
concrete is the lead shot method. Don did it as did some folks in
the real old CSD newsletters i found posted somewhere ....as did i.
Density wise don said he came up a bit short and put some steel bars
under the sole. I also think his keel is a bit fat to try and
compensate. Maybe he'll fess up.
Since i have the complete inability to follow directions i moved my
deadwood up rights forward and aft a bit and poured
away....425lbs....17 bags of #9 hard chilled shot and not that much
epoxy......its solid(i mixwd up and dumped in one bag at a time). As
far as shifting the weight for and aft i don't think it's a problem
as i've got no mizzen out back, my motor is teeny and my mast is 2'
aft of what bolger drew it on the upgrade. Besides it kept me from
stealing a watering trough from the farmer up the road ;)
Still have to get that beast out of the garage up the hill and under
the boat and then attached......i was thinking about filleting and
taping it in place but maybe that's why the whole shebang weighs so
much......i just know how often i ram things on the water.
Let me say to you two oldshoe builders, you're going to dig it. I've
had a good time. The micro is huge for her size if i would have know
this when i started i would have built the old shoe with a paradox
style house(once again can't follow directions). I had the plans for
both but Don and Bruce sold me on there dang fine navigators.
Jason
PS thinks for the help on the sheathing questions.....still can't
find my key.
Robert, I haven't checked your numbers, but you'd need to make sure
the centre of gravity and centre of lateral area of the new keel were
the same as, or close to, the original. It might pay to make it
slightly deeper.
I know from practical experience (the garage floor) that epoxy sticks
to concrete rather well.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are that
the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the 1/4"
sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3 (144
lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete to get
a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2" thickness issue
by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The concrete keel would be
a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy to reinforce. With the
sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be simple to waterproof.
Most of all it would be a lot safer. The plans already provide the
side forms for such a keel. Does anyone see any problems with this
idea? Nautical or otherwise?
the centre of gravity and centre of lateral area of the new keel were
the same as, or close to, the original. It might pay to make it
slightly deeper.
I know from practical experience (the garage floor) that epoxy sticks
to concrete rather well.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
> One of the reasons I hesitate to start building the Oldshoe, I'vehad the plans for a while, is the lead keel. I've been doing some
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are that
the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the 1/4"
sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3 (144
lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete to get
a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2" thickness issue
by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The concrete keel would be
a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy to reinforce. With the
sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be simple to waterproof.
Most of all it would be a lot safer. The plans already provide the
side forms for such a keel. Does anyone see any problems with this
idea? Nautical or otherwise?
> Robert
> epoxy, I haven't calculated the density yet, but I think you could doI think Bolger likes to keep the end of his boats light weight.
> it within the 1 1/2 inch width by moving the deadwood before and aft
> the ballast out to their respective ends pretty easily.
My guess is that lead pellets in epoxy have about half the
density of pure lead. Better to make the keel 3" wide,
or perhaps put some of the ballast centered inside down low.
A 200 lb lead casting would be pretty easy. I would use a
camp fire and a metal bucket, [leather boots, and safety glasses, too]
Concrete is only 20% as dense as lead. 144 pcf vs 710 pcf.
I've been working on spars for an oldshoe, have poured over the plans
and given the keel a lot of thought, including using concrete. I've
come to the conclusion that 1) a 200 pound poor would not be all that
hard and 2) a better option than concrete would be lead shot in
epoxy, I haven't calculated the density yet, but I think you could do
it within the 1 1/2 inch width by moving the deadwood before and aft
the ballast out to their respective ends pretty easily.
If memory serves Jason did his micro keel this way, maybe he will
chime in.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are that
the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the 1/4"
sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3 (144
lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete to get
a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2" thickness issue
by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The concrete keel would be
a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy to reinforce. With the
sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be simple to waterproof.
Most of all it would be a lot safer. The plans already provide the
side forms for such a keel. Does anyone see any problems with this
idea? Nautical or otherwise?
and given the keel a lot of thought, including using concrete. I've
come to the conclusion that 1) a 200 pound poor would not be all that
hard and 2) a better option than concrete would be lead shot in
epoxy, I haven't calculated the density yet, but I think you could do
it within the 1 1/2 inch width by moving the deadwood before and aft
the ballast out to their respective ends pretty easily.
If memory serves Jason did his micro keel this way, maybe he will
chime in.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
> One of the reasons I hesitate to start building the Oldshoe, I'vehad the plans for a while, is the lead keel. I've been doing some
calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are that
the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the 1/4"
sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3 (144
lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete to get
a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2" thickness issue
by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The concrete keel would be
a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy to reinforce. With the
sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be simple to waterproof.
Most of all it would be a lot safer. The plans already provide the
side forms for such a keel. Does anyone see any problems with this
idea? Nautical or otherwise?
> Robert
One of the reasons I hesitate to start building the Oldshoe, I've had the plans for a while, is the lead keel. I've been doing some calculations with concrete. The results of the calculations are that the keel has an area of 1 050 square inches. Including the 1/4" sheeting, the keel is 2" thick. At a density of 2 300 kg/m3 (144 lbs/ft3) I would need a thickness of about 2 1/4" of concrete to get a keel that's 200 pounds. I could stay within the 2" thickness issue by adding 30 pounds of small lead ingots. The concrete keel would be a lot simpler to build, and it would be easy to reinforce. With the sealers (perhaps epoxy) of today it would be simple to waterproof. Most of all it would be a lot safer. The plans already provide the side forms for such a keel. Does anyone see any problems with this idea? Nautical or otherwise?
Robert
Robert