Re: [bolger] Re: Digest Number 2187
pvanderwaart wrote:
who did this found that the lead wasn't suitable because it
had the wrong antimony content, or something like that.
Fortunately he was able to sell the lead (at a small profit,
if I recall).
I am sure it would be suitable for internal ballast though.
Bruce Fountain
Systems Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 2) Someone once reported a nice reception from a firm that sold leadBe careful of going this route. The guy on rec.boats.building
> to doctor's offices and medical facilities for x-ray protection.
> They have standard thickness sheets (e.g. an inch or two), and were
> more than willing to pour to a custom thickness.
who did this found that the lead wasn't suitable because it
had the wrong antimony content, or something like that.
Fortunately he was able to sell the lead (at a small profit,
if I recall).
I am sure it would be suitable for internal ballast though.
Bruce Fountain
Systems Engineer
Union Switch & Signal
Perth, Western Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nee York abounds in scrap yards, check the yellow pages under salvage
Grant (I grew up in Flushing, moved to Vermont when I was 17 and never
regretted it for a minute)
on 9/21/04 2:07 PM, Barry Rosen atbrosen1953@...wrote:
Grant (I grew up in Flushing, moved to Vermont when I was 17 and never
regretted it for a minute)
on 9/21/04 2:07 PM, Barry Rosen atbrosen1953@...wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> For a sail boat with no keel I was thinking of putting some weight under the
> floorboard. One idea I had was some belgian blocks I saw at home depot.
> Another was to fill the space with a pour of concrete into a plastic liner
> (like pond liner) Alternatively, I could use lead.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Also, here would the best place to buy lead for a keel be other than
> scrounging at tire stores? I am in the New York City area.
> Thanks very much
> Barry Rosen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:11 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Digest Number 2187
>
>
>>
>> There are 11 messages in this issue.
>>
>> Topics in this digest:
>>
>> 1. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: "Jeff" <boatbuilding@...>
>> 2. Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
>> 3. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
>> 4. Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>> From: "dbaldnz" <oink@...>
>> 5. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
>> 6. Re: Chebacco mizzen mast question
>> From: "jas_orr" <jas_orr@...>
>> 7. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: <boatbuilding@...>
>> 8. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
>> 9. Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: <boatbuilding@...>
>> 10. Re: Sneakeasy question
>> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
>> 11. Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>> From: jAMES fITCH <theyachtflyingangel@...>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:43:52 -0600
>> From: "Jeff" <boatbuilding@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ----- 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]
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:25:00 -0000
>> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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:
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:16:39 -0000
>> From: "dbaldnz" <oink@...>
>> Subject: Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>>
>> Actually I installed some further ballast under the floor of my
>> Navigator. I got several boxes of steel washer punchings, (what causes
>> the hole in a washer), and cost just a few dollars. They are only
>> about quarter inch diam., lay flat and tight, and mixed with minimal
>> epoxy make a very dense slab of ballast. I screwed ss screws partway
>> into the surrounding framing to give a good key in case of capsize. If
>> you tap the bottom from underneath, it feels like a bank vault door.
>> DonB
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daveydimwit" <david@c...> wrote:
>>> If I do my math right and remember my specific gravities, lead is
>>> about 11.24 and steel is 7.7. If you pack lead shot to a .75 density
>>> - 11.24X.75 = 8.43.
>>> Lead costs a lot more than steel and epoxy is a lot more again.
>>> Somehow I think one could encapsulate a steel ballast in epoxy or even
>>> stainless for a lot less than a lead-epoxy mixture.
>>> I know there are problems with encapsulation but ......
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:21:31 -0700
>> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:16:08 -0000
>> From: "jas_orr" <jas_orr@...>
>> Subject: Re: Chebacco mizzen mast question
>>
>> The sprit has to land somewhere on the mast to keep both leech and
>> foot tight -- it acts like a vang when you find the right spot, and
>> keeps the sail flat and without twist. The Chebacco mizzen isn't
>> worth reefing, it's already very small, and you might as well just
>> furl it. Speaking of which, I furl by rolling the sail around the
>> sprit, which is tied to the sail at the clew (the back corner). I
>> just hold the sprit vertical and start rolling. A couple of short
>> ties keeps it against the mast once its rolled up. With a little
>> practice, I learned to do it without climbing out of the cockpit, but
>> you have to watch out for the boom!
>>
>> Jamie Orr
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
>>> I'll have a similar mizzen on Cormorant, though it'll have a boomkin
>>> to sheet to. (In BWAOM it looks like there's no boomkin on
>> Chebacco.)
>>> The talk of rotating mizzen masts got me wondering if it's possible
>> to
>>> somehow mount the snotter lower down, with an attachment to the
>>> transom rather than on the mast itself? That would enable one to
>> reef
>>> by rolling the sail around the mast, assuming you added some chocks
>> to
>>> the mast down by the step or at the partner. The sprit would then
>> have
>>> a different angle to the sail -- and possibly that would let the
>> sail
>>> ride up too much at the clew. Though the sheet would hold it down,
>>> mostly (moreso with the boomkin down there to provide direct
>> downhaul)
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Is this possible?
>>>
>>> All best,
>>> Garth
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:14:31 -0600 (MDT)
>> From: <boatbuilding@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:09:56 -0000
>> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> --- 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:18:40 -0600 (MDT)
>> From: <boatbuilding@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>> --- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
>> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: jAMES fITCH <theyachtflyingangel@...>
>> Subject: Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>>
>> On The Question of Ballast-
>> 1) Sealing stainless steel off from the air will make it corroad(stain
> and rust)
>> 2) Steel sealed in the same maner will alsoover time rust with even
> more violent results as rust expands as it grows
>> 3) Lead is your best bet---it takes less, it will not cause you
> problems with corrision, will take up less space for the wieght
>>
>> daveydimwit <david@...> wrote:
>> If I do my math right and remember my specific gravities, lead is
>> about 11.24 and steel is 7.7. If you pack lead shot to a .75 density
>> - 11.24X.75 = 8.43.
>> Lead costs a lot more than steel and epoxy is a lot more again.
>> Somehow I think one could encapsulate a steel ballast in epoxy or even
>> stainless for a lot less than a lead-epoxy mixture.
>> I know there are problems with encapsulation but ......
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>>
>> [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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, here would the best place to buy lead for a keel beThree ideas.
> other than scrounging at tire stores?
> I am in the New York City area.
1) There are scrap dealers who deal in metal. I found one here in
Stamford, CT who sold me some lead architectual shingles to weight a
centerboard. (That was 25 years ago; don't know if he is still
there.)
2) Someone once reported a nice reception from a firm that sold lead
to doctor's offices and medical facilities for x-ray protection.
They have standard thickness sheets (e.g. an inch or two), and were
more than willing to pour to a custom thickness.
3) Plumbers use lead. (Plumb means lead.) Someone sells it to them.
Ask a plumber.
Peter
Dear List,
For a sail boat with no keel I was thinking of putting some weight under the
floorboard. One idea I had was some belgian blocks I saw at home depot.
Another was to fill the space with a pour of concrete into a plastic liner
(like pond liner) Alternatively, I could use lead.
Any thoughts?
Also, here would the best place to buy lead for a keel be other than
scrounging at tire stores? I am in the New York City area.
Thanks very much
Barry Rosen
For a sail boat with no keel I was thinking of putting some weight under the
floorboard. One idea I had was some belgian blocks I saw at home depot.
Another was to fill the space with a pour of concrete into a plastic liner
(like pond liner) Alternatively, I could use lead.
Any thoughts?
Also, here would the best place to buy lead for a keel be other than
scrounging at tire stores? I am in the New York City area.
Thanks very much
Barry Rosen
----- Original Message -----
From: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:11 AM
Subject: [bolger] Digest Number 2187
>
> There are 11 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: "Jeff" <boatbuilding@...>
> 2. Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
> 3. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> 4. Re: re lead shot as keel weight
> From: "dbaldnz" <oink@...>
> 5. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> 6. Re: Chebacco mizzen mast question
> From: "jas_orr" <jas_orr@...>
> 7. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: <boatbuilding@...>
> 8. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> 9. Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: <boatbuilding@...>
> 10. Re: Sneakeasy question
> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
> 11. Re: re lead shot as keel weight
> From: jAMES fITCH <theyachtflyingangel@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:43:52 -0600
> From: "Jeff" <boatbuilding@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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
>
> ----- 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]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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:
>
> > 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
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:25:00 -0000
> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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:
> > 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.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:16:39 -0000
> From: "dbaldnz" <oink@...>
> Subject: Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>
> Actually I installed some further ballast under the floor of my
> Navigator. I got several boxes of steel washer punchings, (what causes
> the hole in a washer), and cost just a few dollars. They are only
> about quarter inch diam., lay flat and tight, and mixed with minimal
> epoxy make a very dense slab of ballast. I screwed ss screws partway
> into the surrounding framing to give a good key in case of capsize. If
> you tap the bottom from underneath, it feels like a bank vault door.
> DonB
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daveydimwit" <david@c...> wrote:
> > If I do my math right and remember my specific gravities, lead is
> > about 11.24 and steel is 7.7. If you pack lead shot to a .75 density
> > - 11.24X.75 = 8.43.
> > Lead costs a lot more than steel and epoxy is a lot more again.
> > Somehow I think one could encapsulate a steel ballast in epoxy or even
> > stainless for a lot less than a lead-epoxy mixture.
> > I know there are problems with encapsulation but ......
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:21:31 -0700
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:16:08 -0000
> From: "jas_orr" <jas_orr@...>
> Subject: Re: Chebacco mizzen mast question
>
> The sprit has to land somewhere on the mast to keep both leech and
> foot tight -- it acts like a vang when you find the right spot, and
> keeps the sail flat and without twist. The Chebacco mizzen isn't
> worth reefing, it's already very small, and you might as well just
> furl it. Speaking of which, I furl by rolling the sail around the
> sprit, which is tied to the sail at the clew (the back corner). I
> just hold the sprit vertical and start rolling. A couple of short
> ties keeps it against the mast once its rolled up. With a little
> practice, I learned to do it without climbing out of the cockpit, but
> you have to watch out for the boom!
>
> Jamie Orr
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
> > I'll have a similar mizzen on Cormorant, though it'll have a boomkin
> > to sheet to. (In BWAOM it looks like there's no boomkin on
> Chebacco.)
> > The talk of rotating mizzen masts got me wondering if it's possible
> to
> > somehow mount the snotter lower down, with an attachment to the
> > transom rather than on the mast itself? That would enable one to
> reef
> > by rolling the sail around the mast, assuming you added some chocks
> to
> > the mast down by the step or at the partner. The sprit would then
> have
> > a different angle to the sail -- and possibly that would let the
> sail
> > ride up too much at the clew. Though the sheet would hold it down,
> > mostly (moreso with the boomkin down there to provide direct
> downhaul)
> > . . .
> >
> > Is this possible?
> >
> > All best,
> > Garth
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:14:31 -0600 (MDT)
> From: <boatbuilding@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:09:56 -0000
> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> --- 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
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:18:40 -0600 (MDT)
> From: <boatbuilding@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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
>
>
> > --- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
> Subject: Re: Sneakeasy question
>
> 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:
>
> > 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
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: jAMES fITCH <theyachtflyingangel@...>
> Subject: Re: re lead shot as keel weight
>
> On The Question of Ballast-
> 1) Sealing stainless steel off from the air will make it corroad(stain
and rust)
> 2) Steel sealed in the same maner will alsoover time rust with even
more violent results as rust expands as it grows
> 3) Lead is your best bet---it takes less, it will not cause you
problems with corrision, will take up less space for the wieght
>
> daveydimwit <david@...> wrote:
> If I do my math right and remember my specific gravities, lead is
> about 11.24 and steel is 7.7. If you pack lead shot to a .75 density
> - 11.24X.75 = 8.43.
> Lead costs a lot more than steel and epoxy is a lot more again.
> Somehow I think one could encapsulate a steel ballast in epoxy or even
> stainless for a lot less than a lead-epoxy mixture.
> I know there are problems with encapsulation but ......
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>