Re: [bolger] Re: oil over latex paint
--- David <arbordg@...> wrote:
I have to strip it all next year. I am kind of
anxious to get her in the water, she has been drying
two years and on the trailer all summer, and that
can't be good for her.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> Sam,David, you are right, of course, but the worst case is
>
> You know, of course, that your scheme is gonna be
> rolling the dice.
I have to strip it all next year. I am kind of
anxious to get her in the water, she has been drying
two years and on the trailer all summer, and that
can't be good for her.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sam,
You know, of course, that your scheme is gonna be rolling the dice.
That said, I certainly sympathize with your desire to not strip it all
off and start from scratch. I wonder about the idea of stripping it
all down and leaving it to weather? If you do decide to paint, how
about taking your problem to your bestest local paint supplier and
going with their recommendation? Good luck.
Cheers,
David Graybeal
Portland, OR
*******************
You know, of course, that your scheme is gonna be rolling the dice.
That said, I certainly sympathize with your desire to not strip it all
off and start from scratch. I wonder about the idea of stripping it
all down and leaving it to weather? If you do decide to paint, how
about taking your problem to your bestest local paint supplier and
going with their recommendation? Good luck.
Cheers,
David Graybeal
Portland, OR
*******************
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...> wrote:
>
>
> I have a deckhouse which is made of teak boards. It
> was painted by a previous owner with what I believe to
> be latex paint. It didn't stick worth a darn to the
> oily teak, but where it was over intact paint (the
> majority of the house) it is in good shape. The best
> bet would be to strip all the paint off and start
> fresh, but on the theory that the perfect is the enemy
> of the good (aka Glasscock's laziness principle) I
> would like to leave she tight stuff in place. I
> assume oil-based urethane is what I need over the
> teak, but I don't know how well it will stick to the
> latex. Any help/educated guess/speculation will be
> gratefully accepted. Sam
I have a deckhouse which is made of teak boards. It
was painted by a previous owner with what I believe to
be latex paint. It didn't stick worth a darn to the
oily teak, but where it was over intact paint (the
majority of the house) it is in good shape. The best
bet would be to strip all the paint off and start
fresh, but on the theory that the perfect is the enemy
of the good (aka Glasscock's laziness principle) I
would like to leave she tight stuff in place. I
assume oil-based urethane is what I need over the
teak, but I don't know how well it will stick to the
latex. Any help/educated guess/speculation will be
gratefully accepted. Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
was painted by a previous owner with what I believe to
be latex paint. It didn't stick worth a darn to the
oily teak, but where it was over intact paint (the
majority of the house) it is in good shape. The best
bet would be to strip all the paint off and start
fresh, but on the theory that the perfect is the enemy
of the good (aka Glasscock's laziness principle) I
would like to leave she tight stuff in place. I
assume oil-based urethane is what I need over the
teak, but I don't know how well it will stick to the
latex. Any help/educated guess/speculation will be
gratefully accepted. Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Yes, it does look like the tunnel bottom curve of the Shoals Runner.
In some of the photos of the DG it seems also, similarly,that the
curve of the wavy bottom has a higher amplitude along the keel line
than out at the chine.
The final dip of the bottom right at the stern might act like the
wedge sometimes fitted to planing hulls to give better trim? Some
performance racing yachts now have hydraulically adjustable plates
fitted to the bottom aft of the keel. They can effectively change the
shape of their bottom to better match an appropriate shape for
displacement or planing speeds by trimming the plate up or down.
Alsphere claim the wave forms of the two components, box keel and
upper hull, are out of phase and cancel out or or nullify each other.
That is what the big bulb thingo forward of the bow on ships is
supposed to do to the bow wave.
Anyway, I'd bet they received inspiration from Mr Bolger, or is it a
coincidence that their development started a bit after BWAOM was
published containing step sharpie details. Their claims of the design
advantages read almost as Mr Bolger paraphrased.
Cheers
Graeme
In some of the photos of the DG it seems also, similarly,that the
curve of the wavy bottom has a higher amplitude along the keel line
than out at the chine.
The final dip of the bottom right at the stern might act like the
wedge sometimes fitted to planing hulls to give better trim? Some
performance racing yachts now have hydraulically adjustable plates
fitted to the bottom aft of the keel. They can effectively change the
shape of their bottom to better match an appropriate shape for
displacement or planing speeds by trimming the plate up or down.
Alsphere claim the wave forms of the two components, box keel and
upper hull, are out of phase and cancel out or or nullify each other.
That is what the big bulb thingo forward of the bow on ships is
supposed to do to the bow wave.
Anyway, I'd bet they received inspiration from Mr Bolger, or is it a
coincidence that their development started a bit after BWAOM was
published containing step sharpie details. Their claims of the design
advantages read almost as Mr Bolger paraphrased.
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill_Mercer" <bill_mercer@...> wrote:
> >
> > What about wavy bottoms though? And especially combined with a
> > displacement shifting rule cheating Bolger box keel?
>
> Looks a bit like some of those Atkin-style tunnel hull, except w/out
> the tunnel:
>
>http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Utilities/ShoalsRunner.html
> Look especially at the bottom profile of the Atkin runabout--it also
> has that wave shape to the bottom. The late Robb White built a
> modified version, and reported that the tail of the boat seemed to
> ride on the stern wave of the tunnel keel. I'd guess the Allsphere
> boat does something similar, without the shallow draft.
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
the tunnel:
http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Utilities/ShoalsRunner.html
Covey Island has built a few larger versions:
http://www.coveyisland.com/motor-shoal.html
Look especially at the bottom profile of the Atkin runabout--it also
has that wave shape to the bottom. The late Robb White built a
modified version, and reported that the tail of the boat seemed to
ride on the stern wave of the tunnel keel. I'd guess the Allsphere
boat does something similar, without the shallow draft.
wrote:
>Looks a bit like some of those Atkin-style tunnel hull, except w/out
> This design was discussed over at boatdesign group a year or three
> ago. From the alsphere website it would seem not much really has
> happened since. There was some critique IIRC of the independence or
> credibility of the test results claimed. The wavy bottom goes beyond
> Bolger, is it just marketing?
>
> What about wavy bottoms though? And especially combined with a
> displacement shifting rule cheating Bolger box keel?
the tunnel:
http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Utilities/ShoalsRunner.html
Covey Island has built a few larger versions:
http://www.coveyisland.com/motor-shoal.html
Look especially at the bottom profile of the Atkin runabout--it also
has that wave shape to the bottom. The late Robb White built a
modified version, and reported that the tail of the boat seemed to
ride on the stern wave of the tunnel keel. I'd guess the Allsphere
boat does something similar, without the shallow draft.
In message <007801c6aa81$f92480e0$8ed2804a@gRoger>, derbyrm
<derbyrm@...> writes
published magazine Practical Boat Owner in the late 1970s or early
1980s. The claimed advantage that I recall was the ability to carry and
tack a staysail more easily.
The boat wasn't huge, about 22ft overall I think so the complications
were not absurd. The sheet always pulled down on the batten ends so no
reefing gear was needed at the leech for example, so it kept some of the
advantages of junk rig.
It lost the big advantage of being able to adjust the location of the
sail on the mast which really helps off the wind in a boat with a single
low aspect ratio sail. The junk rigs shown in Phil Bolger's books
suggest to me that he does not understood this strength of the
traditional junk rig design. It is quite interesting that H G (Blondie)
Hasler also used short batten parrels and in one design a fixed ring at
the yard in his early versions of an automatic junk sail (he was not
attempting to build a traditional replica but to meet the specific needs
of single or short handed sailors). Later on he did not recommend them
preferring a running yard parrel, luff hauling parrels and long batten
parrels. In the description of parrel design in the book Practical Junk
Rig there is a strong indication that this was somewhere that an attempt
to simplify had not worked and the superiority of the traditional design
had been proven. This design gives very clean and fast reefing and
automatic furling.
The fully battened gaffer written up in PBO was called the Junkette or
something like and the rig given the same name so at least in that
version no blame was wrongly ascribed.
Perhaps the Bolger version should be called the Gloucester Junk or Gaff
Junk - Gunk for short ;-)
--
Martyn Aldis, e-mailmartyn.aldis@...
==============================================================================
<derbyrm@...> writes
>An almost identical attempt to improve junk rig was written up in the UK
> He was certainly the first to develop the Birdwatcher concept. What
> other firsts?
>The Chinese gaff rig?
published magazine Practical Boat Owner in the late 1970s or early
1980s. The claimed advantage that I recall was the ability to carry and
tack a staysail more easily.
The boat wasn't huge, about 22ft overall I think so the complications
were not absurd. The sheet always pulled down on the batten ends so no
reefing gear was needed at the leech for example, so it kept some of the
advantages of junk rig.
It lost the big advantage of being able to adjust the location of the
sail on the mast which really helps off the wind in a boat with a single
low aspect ratio sail. The junk rigs shown in Phil Bolger's books
suggest to me that he does not understood this strength of the
traditional junk rig design. It is quite interesting that H G (Blondie)
Hasler also used short batten parrels and in one design a fixed ring at
the yard in his early versions of an automatic junk sail (he was not
attempting to build a traditional replica but to meet the specific needs
of single or short handed sailors). Later on he did not recommend them
preferring a running yard parrel, luff hauling parrels and long batten
parrels. In the description of parrel design in the book Practical Junk
Rig there is a strong indication that this was somewhere that an attempt
to simplify had not worked and the superiority of the traditional design
had been proven. This design gives very clean and fast reefing and
automatic furling.
The fully battened gaffer written up in PBO was called the Junkette or
something like and the rig given the same name so at least in that
version no blame was wrongly ascribed.
Perhaps the Bolger version should be called the Gloucester Junk or Gaff
Junk - Gunk for short ;-)
--
Martyn Aldis, e-mailmartyn.aldis@...
==============================================================================
Curves can provide strength in built up fiberglass shapes, where a flat
(ply like) surfaces might oil-can badly. Clyde
graeme19121984 wrote:
(ply like) surfaces might oil-can badly. Clyde
graeme19121984 wrote:
> This design was discussed over at boatdesign group a year or three[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ago. From the alsphere website it would seem not much really has
> happened since. There was some critique IIRC of the independence or
> credibility of the test results claimed. The wavy bottom goes beyond
> Bolger, is it just marketing?
>
> What about wavy bottoms though? And especially combined with a
> displacement shifting rule cheating Bolger box keel?
>
> Thoughts On Wavey Bottom Box Keel/Surf Mat Similarities.
>
> o! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> |
> Unsubscribe
> <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> New Message Search
>
> Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the
> improved message search.
>
> Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJtOWQ1OTc4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTE5NDM2OQRncnBzcElkAzE2MDAwNjU3OTEEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNmZGJjawRzdGltZQMxMTUzMjg3NTkx;_ylg=1/SIG=11im36rmb/**http%3a//surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p1412899.aspx>
>
> Recent Activity
>
> *
> 5
> New Members
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdXNwbWlvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMDY1NzkxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNTMyODc1OTE->
> *
> 4
> New Photos
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZm9rZTMyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMDY1NzkxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzExNTMyODc1OTE->
>
> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNW84N2JxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMDY1NzkxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE1MzI4NzU5MQ-->
>
> .
>
>
Nels, I am curious about the terms box keel and step sharpie. Could
you shed some light on the subject? Doesn't a step sharpie have a box
keel?
I think I am clear on the box keel concept, like Microtrawler. Can you
give an example of a step sharpie....
A brief look at BWOM index lists "sharpie, step. see cutwater, box"
and "cutwater, box (box keel),...Microtrawler,...etc.
Never mind, that answers my questions.
Joe T
you shed some light on the subject? Doesn't a step sharpie have a box
keel?
I think I am clear on the box keel concept, like Microtrawler. Can you
give an example of a step sharpie....
A brief look at BWOM index lists "sharpie, step. see cutwater, box"
and "cutwater, box (box keel),...Microtrawler,...etc.
Never mind, that answers my questions.
Joe T
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> The box keel and what Bolger refers to as the "step sharpie" are two
> different concepts and I think he invented the second one.
>
> Nels
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
either way. Historically his legacy will speak for itself long after
the patent lawyers are gone and forgotten.
His focus is more on what new innovations he is formulating right now
and not his past accomplishments.
Nels
>the "area
> They are adding a little over the Bolger concept, almost like
> rule" on some of the earlier supersonic A/C like the B 58.I doubt very much if stuff like that bothers the genius of Bolger
>
> HJ
>
either way. Historically his legacy will speak for itself long after
the patent lawyers are gone and forgotten.
His focus is more on what new innovations he is formulating right now
and not his past accomplishments.
Nels
This design was discussed over at boatdesign group a year or three
ago. From the alsphere website it would seem not much really has
happened since. There was some critique IIRC of the independence or
credibility of the test results claimed. The wavy bottom goes beyond
Bolger, is it just marketing?
What about wavy bottoms though? And especially combined with a
displacement shifting rule cheating Bolger box keel?
Thoughts On Wavey Bottom Box Keel/Surf Mat Similarities.
I'm thinking that the displaced water supports the box keel which in
turn supports some of the upper main hull weight ordinarily directly
borne by the water. So the main hull then is not immersed as much as
it otherwise would be. In a rule cheating universe it could be said
that the main hull therefore is a little lighter as it floats
higher. If it is, as it were, lighter, then it is as if the effect
of gravity on it is weaker. If you move something on water and it is
apparently lighter somehow, then for the same power applied you are
going to travel faster, or for the same speed you are going to need
less power and fuel.
Now I think the Alsphere design is meant mainly for canals and such.
Flat water. And I think it is meant to run within a narrow speed
range. For a given hull at a given speed there will be a particular
wave set generated. Perhaps if the main hull bottom can be shaped,
wave like, in accord with that wave set then it will be as if there
is no wave set. Less power required than with the usual shape, and a
smaller wake.
These two actions may be evidenced in the modern low pressure
pneumatic Surf Mat ( links below). The Mat (with rider) gains its
power from gravity. However it doesn't just fall through the water,
but picks up speed along a vector resultant from that vertical
gravitational force and the resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces, and travels at near perpendicular to the force of gravity
down and/or across the wave face. As this near horizontal fall
continues it may be as if the Surf Mat has lost weight as it may be
in partial free fall. This effective "loss of weight" is akin to the
boat hull supported by the box keel.The Surf Mat is said to travel
faster than other surf craft; this is for the same power.
The bottom and rails of the Surf Mat are able to flex responsively
or can be induced to do so, and, it is said, smooth out the ripples
and waves, so that it actually travels faster than other surf craft.
It travels faster for the same applied power (gravity). This may be
related to the wavy bottom effects of the Alsphere boat hull.
Or not.:-) I'm off to the freezer for some peas! (SOP must come in
somewhere.)
Cheers
Graeme
Like Rasta says at the Transworld Surf website
http://www.transworldsurf.com/surf/features/article/0,19929,710053,00
.html
"The more air you let out of them the faster they go,..." - by
getting more flexible and wavy at the bottom and rail (chine).
There used to be some sites that got into the whys and wherefors of
the counter-intuitive performance of the modern surf mat but they
seem to be gone. There is a bit of relevant ( to wavy bottomed
boats) info here:
http://www.allaboutsurf.com/articles/solomonson
"Often described by George Greenough as "Pure fall line surfing, a
challenge of using every little ripple". Mike Stewart calls it
the "kinetic bubble". In short, no other wave craft has the
performance and feel of a modern surf mat."
"George discovered that the skim and glide factor at such low air
pressures was amazing... especially in smaller, choppy, weaker,
flatter conditions. He describes it as "fall line surfing... using
every little ripple"."
"But control of such a supple vehicle at speed is contingent upon a
rider's ability to manipulate and balance the remaining air
pressure, through body position and movement, alternately
gripping/squeezing and then releasing the rails. To that end, George
undoubtedly has accumulated the most experience....A general rule of
mat "tuning" has always been"less air in smaller, flatter waves,
more in larger, hollower waves."
"I remember... telling me that the less I try to ride the surfmat
like a bodyboard, the better off I'll be... I see a big set on the
horizon so I slide myself up a little further on the mat. I kick
hard as the swell begins to wall-up and pitch-out. Instead of
pushing the nose of the surfmat down, like I would on a bodyboard, I
grab the two front corners of the mat and "pull" it into the wave.
I'M IN!" p7
"It's an extremely vertical drop, but the surfmat conforms to the
steep face of the wave and I survive the late take-off. Instinct
tells me to dig my legs and fins in for control, but I fight it off.
I lay down low to the mat, lift my legs and the *\@3#%! THING TAKES
OFF!! I end up going so fast that I blast right by an entire closed-
out section. I see a long boarder paddling out, with his eyes and
mouth wide open, totally awestruck that I covered so much distance
and was rocketing straight toward him." p7
"I've since realized that less rider interference equals better
performance. The surfmat automatically wants to find the purest,
cleanest line on the wave. Another mistake that I made was to
inflate the mat with too much air. When you lower the internal air-
pressure of the surfmat, the speed jumps up because the bottom of
the mat is allowed to conform to the face and textures of the wave.
The path of least resistance. Adding air to the mat stiffens up the
rails and makes the thing dig in a bit more. The great thing is that
you're able to fine-tune the mat on the fly, to work in different
types and sizes of waves. You can also change the surf mat's air-
pressure while riding, by tightening and releasing your grip on the
mat.
The thing that really excites me about surfmat is, as the waves get
bigger, it seems to want to go faster and faster! I notice that with
my surfboards, there comes a point where I feel I have reached
maximum speed. In some cases the waves get too fast or big and I
feel "under-gunned" with the surfboard. So far, I haven't found the
upper speed limit of the surfmat." p7 Greg Deets
http://www.surfmat.com/
http://www.wetsand.com/product.asp?ProdId=1386&LocationID=4&AFID
http://www.rodndtube.com/paipo/intimacy_or_evolution.html
http://www.rodndtube.com/paipo/MyPaipoBoards.html
ago. From the alsphere website it would seem not much really has
happened since. There was some critique IIRC of the independence or
credibility of the test results claimed. The wavy bottom goes beyond
Bolger, is it just marketing?
What about wavy bottoms though? And especially combined with a
displacement shifting rule cheating Bolger box keel?
Thoughts On Wavey Bottom Box Keel/Surf Mat Similarities.
I'm thinking that the displaced water supports the box keel which in
turn supports some of the upper main hull weight ordinarily directly
borne by the water. So the main hull then is not immersed as much as
it otherwise would be. In a rule cheating universe it could be said
that the main hull therefore is a little lighter as it floats
higher. If it is, as it were, lighter, then it is as if the effect
of gravity on it is weaker. If you move something on water and it is
apparently lighter somehow, then for the same power applied you are
going to travel faster, or for the same speed you are going to need
less power and fuel.
Now I think the Alsphere design is meant mainly for canals and such.
Flat water. And I think it is meant to run within a narrow speed
range. For a given hull at a given speed there will be a particular
wave set generated. Perhaps if the main hull bottom can be shaped,
wave like, in accord with that wave set then it will be as if there
is no wave set. Less power required than with the usual shape, and a
smaller wake.
These two actions may be evidenced in the modern low pressure
pneumatic Surf Mat ( links below). The Mat (with rider) gains its
power from gravity. However it doesn't just fall through the water,
but picks up speed along a vector resultant from that vertical
gravitational force and the resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces, and travels at near perpendicular to the force of gravity
down and/or across the wave face. As this near horizontal fall
continues it may be as if the Surf Mat has lost weight as it may be
in partial free fall. This effective "loss of weight" is akin to the
boat hull supported by the box keel.The Surf Mat is said to travel
faster than other surf craft; this is for the same power.
The bottom and rails of the Surf Mat are able to flex responsively
or can be induced to do so, and, it is said, smooth out the ripples
and waves, so that it actually travels faster than other surf craft.
It travels faster for the same applied power (gravity). This may be
related to the wavy bottom effects of the Alsphere boat hull.
Or not.:-) I'm off to the freezer for some peas! (SOP must come in
somewhere.)
Cheers
Graeme
Like Rasta says at the Transworld Surf website
http://www.transworldsurf.com/surf/features/article/0,19929,710053,00
.html
"The more air you let out of them the faster they go,..." - by
getting more flexible and wavy at the bottom and rail (chine).
There used to be some sites that got into the whys and wherefors of
the counter-intuitive performance of the modern surf mat but they
seem to be gone. There is a bit of relevant ( to wavy bottomed
boats) info here:
http://www.allaboutsurf.com/articles/solomonson
"Often described by George Greenough as "Pure fall line surfing, a
challenge of using every little ripple". Mike Stewart calls it
the "kinetic bubble". In short, no other wave craft has the
performance and feel of a modern surf mat."
"George discovered that the skim and glide factor at such low air
pressures was amazing... especially in smaller, choppy, weaker,
flatter conditions. He describes it as "fall line surfing... using
every little ripple"."
"But control of such a supple vehicle at speed is contingent upon a
rider's ability to manipulate and balance the remaining air
pressure, through body position and movement, alternately
gripping/squeezing and then releasing the rails. To that end, George
undoubtedly has accumulated the most experience....A general rule of
mat "tuning" has always been"less air in smaller, flatter waves,
more in larger, hollower waves."
"I remember... telling me that the less I try to ride the surfmat
like a bodyboard, the better off I'll be... I see a big set on the
horizon so I slide myself up a little further on the mat. I kick
hard as the swell begins to wall-up and pitch-out. Instead of
pushing the nose of the surfmat down, like I would on a bodyboard, I
grab the two front corners of the mat and "pull" it into the wave.
I'M IN!" p7
"It's an extremely vertical drop, but the surfmat conforms to the
steep face of the wave and I survive the late take-off. Instinct
tells me to dig my legs and fins in for control, but I fight it off.
I lay down low to the mat, lift my legs and the *\@3#%! THING TAKES
OFF!! I end up going so fast that I blast right by an entire closed-
out section. I see a long boarder paddling out, with his eyes and
mouth wide open, totally awestruck that I covered so much distance
and was rocketing straight toward him." p7
"I've since realized that less rider interference equals better
performance. The surfmat automatically wants to find the purest,
cleanest line on the wave. Another mistake that I made was to
inflate the mat with too much air. When you lower the internal air-
pressure of the surfmat, the speed jumps up because the bottom of
the mat is allowed to conform to the face and textures of the wave.
The path of least resistance. Adding air to the mat stiffens up the
rails and makes the thing dig in a bit more. The great thing is that
you're able to fine-tune the mat on the fly, to work in different
types and sizes of waves. You can also change the surf mat's air-
pressure while riding, by tightening and releasing your grip on the
mat.
The thing that really excites me about surfmat is, as the waves get
bigger, it seems to want to go faster and faster! I notice that with
my surfboards, there comes a point where I feel I have reached
maximum speed. In some cases the waves get too fast or big and I
feel "under-gunned" with the surfboard. So far, I haven't found the
upper speed limit of the surfmat." p7 Greg Deets
http://www.surfmat.com/
http://www.wetsand.com/product.asp?ProdId=1386&LocationID=4&AFID
http://www.rodndtube.com/paipo/intimacy_or_evolution.html
http://www.rodndtube.com/paipo/MyPaipoBoards.html
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> They are adding a little over the Bolger concept, almost like
the "area
> rule" on some of the earlier supersonic A/C like the B 58.
>
> HJ
>
> Kenneth Grome wrote:
> > Interesting how this company can claim a patent on a design
innovation that I thought was developed by Philip Bolger:
> >
> >http://www.alsphere.at/dg/index.shtml
> >
> > Kenneth Grome
> > Bagacay Boatworks
> > Cebu City, Philippines
> >
> >
> >
>
They are adding a little over the Bolger concept, almost like the "area
rule" on some of the earlier supersonic A/C like the B 58.
HJ
Kenneth Grome wrote:
rule" on some of the earlier supersonic A/C like the B 58.
HJ
Kenneth Grome wrote:
> Interesting how this company can claim a patent on a design innovation that I thought was developed by Philip Bolger:
>
>http://www.alsphere.at/dg/index.shtml
>
> Kenneth Grome
> Bagacay Boatworks
> Cebu City, Philippines
>
>
>
I don't believe you can patent something that has been in the "public domain" for a year(?) or more. Arthur C. Clarke (science fiction author) invented the communications satellite, but he published a story in the 1940s describing the scheme. Later when technology caught up, he was denied the patent, not because anyone challenged him as the inventor, but only because it had been published.
If PCB described the arrangement; e.g. in MAIB, then these fellows would need to have filed before the deadline. (and meet other requirements showing their claims were unique)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
If PCB described the arrangement; e.g. in MAIB, then these fellows would need to have filed before the deadline. (and meet other requirements showing their claims were unique)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: Nels
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Bolger innovation or not?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
> I don't think that Phil Bolger claims to have invented the box
keel,
> but I too first learned of it from Bolger's designs.
>
The box keel and what Bolger refers to as the "step sharpie" are two
different concepts and I think he invented the second one. Probably
never tried to patent it and these fellows did. Would be interesting
to find out the date of the patent application.
Some same that Phil and Dynamite may have been the first to build a
working windsurfer too. They saw it as a novelty thing.
He was certainly the first to develop the Birdwatcher concept. What
other firsts? The Chinese gaff rig? I saw a boat advertised for sale
somewhere with a lifting winged keel. Two of his vang developments
are quite different. The strut type like on Camper and the one
forward of the boom like on Wandervogel.
The entire Micro concept as a package, with its keel design, free-
flooding ends, and central watertight living space, simple sprit cat-
yawl rig was a whole new concept at the time even if each separate
feature may not have been all that new.
Much of his design work seems to have visualized what may have
evolved in simple yacht design if the racing class rules had not
taken over
Nels
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
different concepts and I think he invented the second one. Probably
never tried to patent it and these fellows did. Would be interesting
to find out the date of the patent application.
Some same that Phil and Dynamite may have been the first to build a
working windsurfer too. They saw it as a novelty thing.
He was certainly the first to develop the Birdwatcher concept. What
other firsts? The Chinese gaff rig? I saw a boat advertised for sale
somewhere with a lifting winged keel. Two of his vang developments
are quite different. The strut type like on Camper and the one
forward of the boom like on Wandervogel.
The entire Micro concept as a package, with its keel design, free-
flooding ends, and central watertight living space, simple sprit cat-
yawl rig was a whole new concept at the time even if each separate
feature may not have been all that new.
Much of his design work seems to have visualized what may have
evolved in simple yacht design if the racing class rules had not
taken over
Nels
> I don't think that Phil Bolger claims to have invented the boxkeel,
> but I too first learned of it from Bolger's designs.The box keel and what Bolger refers to as the "step sharpie" are two
>
different concepts and I think he invented the second one. Probably
never tried to patent it and these fellows did. Would be interesting
to find out the date of the patent application.
Some same that Phil and Dynamite may have been the first to build a
working windsurfer too. They saw it as a novelty thing.
He was certainly the first to develop the Birdwatcher concept. What
other firsts? The Chinese gaff rig? I saw a boat advertised for sale
somewhere with a lifting winged keel. Two of his vang developments
are quite different. The strut type like on Camper and the one
forward of the boom like on Wandervogel.
The entire Micro concept as a package, with its keel design, free-
flooding ends, and central watertight living space, simple sprit cat-
yawl rig was a whole new concept at the time even if each separate
feature may not have been all that new.
Much of his design work seems to have visualized what may have
evolved in simple yacht design if the racing class rules had not
taken over
Nels
> Interesting how this company can claim a patent on a design innovation that I thought was developed by Philip Bolger:I don't think that Phil Bolger claims to have invented the box keel,
but I too first learned of it from Bolger's designs.
Interesting how this company can claim a patent on a design innovation that I thought was developed by Philip Bolger:
http://www.alsphere.at/dg/index.shtml
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
Cebu City, Philippines
http://www.alsphere.at/dg/index.shtml
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
Cebu City, Philippines