Re: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro

> The homemade strip of lead blocks that you made to bring all the lines
> aft.

> Going through your photos I can see that you would probably be
> warranted to do a Duckworks article on homemade blocks.

>> Are their a pictures on line of your homemade deck organizer on the
>> Micro Navigator? I have misplaced my copies that you had up earlier.
>>
>
> Here are my building photos. I don't know what you mean by 'deck organizer'.
>
>http://sports.webshots.com/album/121069753OCENAu
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
>
>

> Are their a pictures on line of your homemade deck organizer on the
> Micro Navigator? I have misplaced my copies that you had up earlier.

>

>From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@

>When anchored from the bow do you sleep forward in the Esther Mae,
>Chester? I would have thought that weight forward would stop the
>wave slap. PCB described this advantage of the sleeping forward
>arrangement in the Singlehanded Schooner. The weight up front
>pitches the bow down into the water. The waves are then cut by the
>bow rather than slapping/drumming on the bottom. Perhaps motor, and
>fuel weight back in the stern don't allow sufficient pitching of the
>rising bottom forward in a hull like the Esther Mae.
>
>
>Graeme
>

>
> In a message dated 10/10/2006 3:21:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
> donschultz@iname. <mailto:donschultz%40iname.com> com writes:
>
> "though you'd want to be cafeful to not include SOOO much rebar that
> the resulting structer was WEAKER than concrete alone...."
>
> Not much chance of that. Concrete is NOT very strong compared to
> steel. It is not very dense compared to steel.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes....that is techincally true but not practically true....
>
> You can only get concrete so "thin" before it doesnt behave like concrete
> anymore...
>
> As an example....surround a piece of rebar with a thickness of 3 inches of

> concrete on all sides and that sucker will last forever...
>
> Surround same rebar with a thickness of 0.3 millimeters and within year

> will have a naked rusted piece of rebar....
>
> IFFFFF the concrete is the only thing holding the various pieces of rebar
> TOGETHER.....the thickeness of the concrete BETTER be enough to last

> before cracking and spalling....
>
> Which brings up another point....if I was putting said rebar in concrete

> a keel, particularly for a boat to be used in saltwater....I would coat

> rebar with something before putting it in the concrete.....a thin layer or

> epoxy and perhaps another one or two at the ends would probably be a good
> idea.....once enough water/oxygen/salt reaches the rebar and starts

> rust your rebar/concrete maxtrix's days are numbered...
>
> Bllll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead

> - 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:

> - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@

> - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Be aware that the Micro keel is cast on its side, an
> inch and a half thick. It is much simpler to pour
> lead
> 'flat' than 'vertical', as lead is very heavy and
> when
> molten it has the viscosity of water but still
> weighs A LOT!
>
> (For instance, a piece of steel floats on lead like
> a cork.)
>

>
> Funny that you suggest that. I have considered that option as

> there very effective in dealing with the size of wavelet that

> most noise.
>
> Buck

>From: "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability (bow chatter)
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:15:21 -0000
>
>I wonder if anyone has tried floating a pool noodle or two across the
>bow to reduce noise at anchor.
>
>Joe T
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "9buck crowley" <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> >
> > Graeme,
> >
> > On a cruise last year on the Maine coast I tried sinking the bow by
>hanging
> > as much weight as possible off the bow and floating whatever was at
>hand in
> > front to dampen the waves but to little effect. Stern to side to was
>not any
> > better. I have some other ideas I'd like to try out but as of now I
> > haven't. One is the equivalent of (don't laugh) a car bra which
>could be
> > fitted at anchor across or more precisely under the bow. The "Broat"
>would
> > bridge the gap between the keel and chine and absorb the energy of the
> > wavelets. As you can see there have been a few sleepless nights
>devoted to
> > this. I've read here that some are not bothered by the sound my wife
>is one
> > of them. I myself want to be able to hear approaching traffic, fog
>horns
> > etc. which the the drip drap chatter under my head drowns out.
> >
> > Buck Crowley
>
>
>
>

>
> I know this is not as simple as what Phil has done for
> a keel but for someone like myself I could have it
> cutout and welded up and ready to pour the lead in 5
> to 6 hours.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if anyone has tried floating a pool noodle or two across the
> bow to reduce noise at anchor.
>
> Joe T

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "9buck crowley" <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
As you can see there have been a few sleepless nights devoted to
> this. I've read here that some are not bothered by the sound my wife
is one
> of them. I myself want to be able to hear approaching traffic, fog
horns
> etc. which the the drip drap chatter under my head drowns out.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "9buck crowley" <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
>
> Graeme,
>
> On a cruise last year on the Maine coast I tried sinking the bow by
hanging
> as much weight as possible off the bow and floating whatever was at
hand in
> front to dampen the waves but to little effect. Stern to side to was
not any
> better. I have some other ideas I'd like to try out but as of now I
> haven't. One is the equivalent of (don't laugh) a car bra which
could be
> fitted at anchor across or more precisely under the bow. The "Broat"
would
> bridge the gap between the keel and chine and absorb the energy of the
> wavelets. As you can see there have been a few sleepless nights
devoted to
> this. I've read here that some are not bothered by the sound my wife
is one
> of them. I myself want to be able to hear approaching traffic, fog
horns
> etc. which the the drip drap chatter under my head drowns out.
>
> Buck Crowley

>From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:40:45 -0000
>
>When anchored from the bow do you sleep forward in the Esther Mae,
>Chester? I would have thought that weight forward would stop the
>wave slap. PCB described this advantage of the sleeping forward
>arrangement in the Singlehanded Schooner. The weight up front
>pitches the bow down into the water. The waves are then cut by the
>bow rather than slapping/drumming on the bottom. Perhaps motor, and
>fuel weight back in the stern don't allow sufficient pitching of the
>rising bottom forward in a hull like the Esther Mae.
>
>A lot of gear would need be transferred to the forward well in Micro
>to have that deeply rockered bottom pitch enough to cut the racket.
>A flat iron bottom, as under the Cynthia J cabin, should be fairly
>quiet. Sleeping crew weight, well forward of the normal centre of
>bouyancy, there on the flat floor will cause positive pitch enough
>to sink the bow.
>
>Graeme
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Chester Young" <chester@...> wrote:
> >
> > The curves are one dimensional, not compound. This generates a
>uniform
> > surface that is struck flatly all at one time by waves rolling
>under the
> > bottom, thus creating the sound heard inside. I noted earlier
>that
> > anchoring the Esther Mae stern to eliminates the majority of this
>sound. I
> > think it is due to allowing the wave to strike an oblique surface
>that is
> > more verticle but not facing the wave flatly. I should have said
>stern to
> > from one corner or the other, starboard or port. Thickness of
>plywood does
> > not seem to affect it, at least up to two sheets of 3/8".
> >
> >
> >
> > Caloosarat
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of
> > Bruce Hallman
> > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:18 PM
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/06, 9buck crowley wrote:
> >
> > > At anchor the micro and I suspect all these flat bottom boats
>are pretty
> > > noisy down below.
> >
> > I don't deny the reports of noise, though personally, I don't find
>the
> > noises annoying.
> >
> > I do disagree that the bottom of the Micro is 'flat'. The Micro
> > bottom (and sides)
> > have a very deep and pronounced curvature. Perhaps the reason for
>the noise
> > reports is that the Micro is made of thin plywood which transmits
>noise
> > easily?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Chester Young" <chester@...> wrote:
>
> The curves are one dimensional, not compound. This generates a
uniform
> surface that is struck flatly all at one time by waves rolling
under the
> bottom, thus creating the sound heard inside. I noted earlier
that
> anchoring the Esther Mae stern to eliminates the majority of this
sound. I
> think it is due to allowing the wave to strike an oblique surface
that is
> more verticle but not facing the wave flatly. I should have said
stern to
> from one corner or the other, starboard or port. Thickness of
plywood does
> not seem to affect it, at least up to two sheets of 3/8".
>
>
>
> Caloosarat
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
> Bruce Hallman
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:18 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
>
>
>
> On 10/16/06, 9buck crowley wrote:
>
> > At anchor the micro and I suspect all these flat bottom boats
are pretty
> > noisy down below.
>
> I don't deny the reports of noise, though personally, I don't find
the
> noises annoying.
>
> I do disagree that the bottom of the Micro is 'flat'. The Micro
> bottom (and sides)
> have a very deep and pronounced curvature. Perhaps the reason for
the noise
> reports is that the Micro is made of thin plywood which transmits
noise
> easily?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> for a forward companionway

>
> --
> Ok, I'll bite, what's the problem with Common Sense Designs?

>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Chester Young" <chester@> wrote:
> >
> > The curves are one dimensional, not compound.
>
> Bolger and Friends have addressed this on most of their flat-

> plan upgrades where one might sleep aboard.
>
> Referred to as a "no-slap pad added at the forefoot... built up

> and butter fashion from scrap plywood." This I expect would add to

> hull thickness and deaden the drumming effect, as well as provide

> strength, additional buoyancy in the bow, and less pounding when
> motoring into a head sea.
>
> Not sure if it is in the regular Micro plans but anyone ordering

> should also request the latest Navigator upgrade. (DO NOT order

> from Common Sense or Duckflat Boatworks!) It also includes drawings
> for a forward companionway and the mast on a tablernacle and

> bow as well as the end-plated rudder and some other goodies

> even if you build the standard version without a pilothouse.
>
> All this additional complication however, makes one wonder if it is
> all worth it on such a short waterline. The Long Micro already has
> some of these additions and is less complicated to build. The all

> weight and size is not that much different to trailer and you get a
> lot more boat for the buck invested in my opinion.
>
> Then there is Wandervogel, of which I would love to see plans
> finalized.
>
> Nels
>

>
> The curves are one dimensional, not compound.

On 10/16/06, 9buck crowley wrote:

> At anchor the micro and I suspect all these flat bottom boats are pretty
> noisy down below.

I don't deny the reports of noise, though personally, I don't find the
noises annoying.

I do disagree that the bottom of the Micro is 'flat'. The Micro
bottom (and sides)
have a very deep and pronounced curvature. Perhaps the reason for the noise
reports is that the Micro is made of thin plywood which transmits noise
easily?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> At anchor the micro and I suspect all these flat bottom boats are pretty
> noisy down below.

>From: "pdorc62" <pdorcey@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:20:59 -0000
>
>Buck,
>Always interested in both building and sailing experiences in Micro. Would
>you elaborate
>on what you found to be Micro's one little fault? Thanks
>
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "9buck crowley" <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130
>degrees
> > and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some
>pretty
> > bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago
>when I
> > finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the
>start
> > that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was able
>to
> > see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track. I've
> > been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has given
>me a
> > definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers
>attached
> > to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
> > side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses the
> > same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit rig
> > that's the problem.
> > To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
> > through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will travel
>1.4
> > miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to get
>to
> > the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and do
> > find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking
>through
> > 120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
> > I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it
>again I
> > would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
> > One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and
>requires
> > gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you generaly
> > don't get on a boat.
> > Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
> > tender.
> > Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few
>boats
> > can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
> > Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier
>and
> > faster.
> >
> > All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in the
>Sea
> > of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as
>our in
> > home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little
>fault
> > which I'll leave to another time.
> >
> > Buck Crowley
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: BllFs6@...
> > >Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > >To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
> > >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:08:06 EDT
> > >
> > >
> > >In a message dated 10/10/2006 10:09:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > >bruce@... writes:
> > >
> > >On 10/9/06, 9buck crowley <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone out there any first hand knowledge of the "Micros"
>pointing
> > > > ability. Mine which I feel was very well made, fair smooth etc.'
>tacks
> > > > through 130 degrees. That's not very good. I'm considering having
>new
> > >sails
> > > > made to see if that's the problem but I don't want to go to the
> > >expense if
> > > > the problem is with the design....
> > > >
> > > > Buck
> > >
> > >
> > >I think mine points better than 130. The quality of the cut of the
> > >sail, plus your technique, matters. If I need to get to windward in a
> > >hurry, I use my motor.
> > >
> > >A Micro will never point as high as the expensive, high tech / high
> > >stress sloops. But the sloops lose when your goal is simplicity,
> > >comfort and ease.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi guys..
> > >
> > >This brings up a point I've wondered about given that old shoe and
>micro
> > >are
> > >two of my favorite/most likely if anything to be built designs....
> > >
> > >Take a Bolger Micro,
> > >
> > >Now take a similar "normal" sailboat....nice commercial one say, but by
>the
> > >same token not a gold plated, state of the art, mega buck absolute best
> > >carbon
> > > graphite racing machine...
> > >
> > >Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length and
> > >breadth,
> > >a nice smooth "normal" shaped hull, a real proper fixed keel, modern
> > >"normal" sail set up, and about the same all up weight and load
>carrying
> > >capacity....
> > >
> > >Now, both boats are trying to run a course that is directly upwind,
> > >Obviously, they can't so they tack back and forth, going from "side to
> > >side" but
> > >overall they do make upwind progress...
> > >
> > >How does a Bolger Micro compare with the "normal" commercial boat? In a
> > >light wind or medium wind or strong wind?
> > >
> > >50 percent of the normal one? 75 percent as fast? 90?
> > >
> > >And allow for a tacking angle that allows for the fasted NET upwind
> > >progress
> > >for each rather than fastest "apparent" speed etc etc
> > >
> > >Forgive my lack of proper sailing terms...
> > >
> > >Blll
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "9buck crowley" <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130 degrees
> and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some pretty
> bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago when I
> finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the start
> that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was able to
> see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track. I've
> been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has given me a
> definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers attached
> to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
> side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses the
> same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit rig
> that's the problem.
> To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
> through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will travel 1.4
> miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to get to
> the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and do
> find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking through
> 120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
> I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it again I
> would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
> One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and requires
> gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you generaly
> don't get on a boat.
> Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
> tender.
> Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few boats
> can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
> Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier and
> faster.
>
> All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in the Sea
> of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as our in
> home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little fault
> which I'll leave to another time.
>
> Buck Crowley
>
>
>
> >From: BllFs6@...
> >Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
> >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:08:06 EDT
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 10/10/2006 10:09:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> >bruce@... writes:
> >
> >On 10/9/06, 9buck crowley <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Has anyone out there any first hand knowledge of the "Micros" pointing
> > > ability. Mine which I feel was very well made, fair smooth etc.' tacks
> > > through 130 degrees. That's not very good. I'm considering having new
> >sails
> > > made to see if that's the problem but I don't want to go to the
> >expense if
> > > the problem is with the design....
> > >
> > > Buck
> >
> >
> >I think mine points better than 130. The quality of the cut of the
> >sail, plus your technique, matters. If I need to get to windward in a
> >hurry, I use my motor.
> >
> >A Micro will never point as high as the expensive, high tech / high
> >stress sloops. But the sloops lose when your goal is simplicity,
> >comfort and ease.
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi guys..
> >
> >This brings up a point I've wondered about given that old shoe and micro
> >are
> >two of my favorite/most likely if anything to be built designs....
> >
> >Take a Bolger Micro,
> >
> >Now take a similar "normal" sailboat....nice commercial one say, but by the
> >same token not a gold plated, state of the art, mega buck absolute best
> >carbon
> > graphite racing machine...
> >
> >Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length and
> >breadth,
> >a nice smooth "normal" shaped hull, a real proper fixed keel, modern
> >"normal" sail set up, and about the same all up weight and load carrying
> >capacity....
> >
> >Now, both boats are trying to run a course that is directly upwind,
> >Obviously, they can't so they tack back and forth, going from "side to
> >side" but
> >overall they do make upwind progress...
> >
> >How does a Bolger Micro compare with the "normal" commercial boat? In a
> >light wind or medium wind or strong wind?
> >
> >50 percent of the normal one? 75 percent as fast? 90?
> >
> >And allow for a tacking angle that allows for the fasted NET upwind
> >progress
> >for each rather than fastest "apparent" speed etc etc
> >
> >Forgive my lack of proper sailing terms...
> >
> >Blll
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

>
> Shrinkage is 1/8" to the foot with lead.
>
> > From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> > Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:00:22 -0700
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro/Oldshoe
> >
> > On 10/14/06, lancasterdennis <dlancast@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, the foundry explained that... shrinkage will be in length

> >> height, but not much in thickness.
> >
> > Be aware that lead is soft, soft enough to be cut with a wood

> > casting was a inch off in shape to match the curvature of the

> > of the hull, and I just cut it to shape with the Skilsaw.
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or

> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks,

> > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip

> > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,

> > (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

On Saturday 14 October 2006 23:21, John Kohnen wrote:
> The lead will shrink in the mold as it cools, so �
> your ballast will be a bit smaller than the wooden pattern. I can't seem �
> to find the right search terms for a 'net search for the percentage to �
> expect, but it's out there somewhere I'm sure. The shrinkage is probably �
> small enough to handle with thickened goo, or maybe shims.

>


> Dennis
>
> I like butt blocks. Yes, bevel all edges. They look to me like they
> will not fail.
> On my bottom the two butt blocks were very close to the ends of the
> foot well, about .75 in. shy which I filled in with a bit of ply.
> That's where I used galvinized carriage bolts through the keel

> The rest of the keel strip was drawn tight with screws. Again, in
> addition to bronze ring nails, I don't see any problem using
> galvinized screws and bolts thruout unless you are building a gold
> plater, cost be damned.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > ... I am a bit confused as what you mean by bolts through
> > the two butt blocks.. could you explain that for me please. I

> > that the bottom panels will be butted and a butt block used, as

> > the side panels. Some builders have gone without the blocks and
> > reported success.. however, I believe one used addtional

> > for hull side strength. Are we talking about the same thing?
> >
> > I made my tiller today. Had a nice hunk of mahogany and got the
> > stick out just fine, very happy with it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > > Be aware that the lead casting will shrink some. Your foundry

> > > probably supply particulars.
> > > Glass the bottom first. Epoxy, bolts through two butt blocks

> > > screws for keel strip. I just used epoxy and ring nails

> > spaced
> > > to attach the keel cheeks to the keel strip. Ring nails for

> > other
> > > attachments to keel and blocking. No need to drill for ring

> > >
> > > Joe T
>

> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:00:22 -0700
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro/Oldshoe
>
> On 10/14/06, lancasterdennis <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the foundry explained that... shrinkage will be in length and
>> height, but not much in thickness.
>
> Be aware that lead is soft, soft enough to be cut with a wood saw. My
> casting was a inch off in shape to match the curvature of the bottom
> of the hull, and I just cut it to shape with the Skilsaw.
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>

> Yes, the foundry explained that... shrinkage will be in length and
> height, but not much in thickness.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> ... I am a bit confused as what you mean by bolts through
> the two butt blocks.. could you explain that for me please. I know
> that the bottom panels will be butted and a butt block used, as will
> the side panels. Some builders have gone without the blocks and
> reported success.. however, I believe one used addtional stringers
> for hull side strength. Are we talking about the same thing?
>
> I made my tiller today. Had a nice hunk of mahogany and got the
> stick out just fine, very happy with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>
>
>
> -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@> wrote:
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> > Be aware that the lead casting will shrink some. Your foundry can
> > probably supply particulars.
> > Glass the bottom first. Epoxy, bolts through two butt blocks and
> > screws for keel strip. I just used epoxy and ring nails closely
> spaced
> > to attach the keel cheeks to the keel strip. Ring nails for all
> other
> > attachments to keel and blocking. No need to drill for ring nails.
> >
> > Joe T

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:54:21 -0700, Dennis wrote:
> ...
> My plan is to build the boat upside down on a strong back. After
> the bottom is on and the keelson in place, I will build the keel and
> using the wood plug that I made for the ballast casting, dry
> assemble the keel and test fit it to the hull. I will predrill my
> screw placements to the keelson, then insert the lead ballast and
> finish up the keel. At that point, the keel will be lifted into
> place and screwed down with lots of thickened epoxy. After, proper
> fillets will be added to the keel to hull seam. At least this is my
> plan....

--
John <jkohnen@...>
I cannot help thinking that the people with motor boats miss a great deal.
If they would only keep to rowboats or canoes, and use oar or paddle...
they would get infinitely more benefit than by having their work done for
them by gasoline. <Theodore Roosevelt>

>
> Dennis
>
> Be aware that the lead casting will shrink some. Your foundry can
> probably supply particulars.
> Glass the bottom first. Epoxy, bolts through two butt blocks and
> screws for keel strip. I just used epoxy and ring nails closely

> to attach the keel cheeks to the keel strip. Ring nails for all

> attachments to keel and blocking. No need to drill for ring nails.
>
> Joe T
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@> wrote:
> >
> > -
> > I have been following this thread with great interest. My Shoe

> > just a smaller version of the Micro, the lead being about half

> > weight at 200lbs. I was at first concerned that there were no

> > bolts to hold that lead to the boat, but am now convinced that
> > Bolger's method of attachment is sound and does work. In fact, I
> > believe that when that keel is finally on, it will be rock

> > My plan is to build the boat upside down on a strong back.

> > the bottom is on and the keelson in place, I will build the keel

> > using the wood plug that I made for the ballast casting, dry
> > assemble the keel and test fit it to the hull. I will predrill

> > screw placements to the keelson, then insert the lead ballast

> > finish up the keel. At that point, the keel will be lifted into
> > place and screwed down with lots of thickened epoxy. After,

> > fillets will be added to the keel to hull seam. At least this

> > plan....
> >
> > Fairwinds,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
>

>
> Hi
>
> If it's not to late I'd suggest eliminating those butt splices in

> another splicing method mine trap dirt and water and add to the

> keeping the boats interior clean.
>
> Buck
>
>
> >From: "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@...>
> >Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro/Oldshoe
> >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:11:53 -0000
> >
> >Dennis
> >
> >Be aware that the lead casting will shrink some. Your foundry can
> >probably supply particulars.
> >Glass the bottom first. Epoxy, bolts through two butt blocks and
> >screws for keel strip. I just used epoxy and ring nails closely

> >to attach the keel cheeks to the keel strip. Ring nails for all

> >attachments to keel and blocking. No need to drill for ring nails.
> >
> >Joe T
> >
> >--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@>

> > >
> > > -
> > > I have been following this thread with great interest. My

> > > just a smaller version of the Micro, the lead being about half

> > > weight at 200lbs. I was at first concerned that there were no

> > > bolts to hold that lead to the boat, but am now convinced that
> > > Bolger's method of attachment is sound and does work. In fact,

> > > believe that when that keel is finally on, it will be rock

> > > My plan is to build the boat upside down on a strong back.

> > > the bottom is on and the keelson in place, I will build the

> > > using the wood plug that I made for the ballast casting, dry
> > > assemble the keel and test fit it to the hull. I will

> > > screw placements to the keelson, then insert the lead ballast

> > > finish up the keel. At that point, the keel will be lifted

> > > place and screwed down with lots of thickened epoxy. After,

> > > fillets will be added to the keel to hull seam. At least this

> > > plan....
> > >
> > > Fairwinds,
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > > Bellingham, WA
> >
> >
> >
>

>From: "Joe Tribulato" <scsbmsjoe@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro/Oldshoe
>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:11:53 -0000
>
>Dennis
>
>Be aware that the lead casting will shrink some. Your foundry can
>probably supply particulars.
>Glass the bottom first. Epoxy, bolts through two butt blocks and
>screws for keel strip. I just used epoxy and ring nails closely spaced
>to attach the keel cheeks to the keel strip. Ring nails for all other
>attachments to keel and blocking. No need to drill for ring nails.
>
>Joe T
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
> >
> > -
> > I have been following this thread with great interest. My Shoe is
> > just a smaller version of the Micro, the lead being about half the
> > weight at 200lbs. I was at first concerned that there were no keel
> > bolts to hold that lead to the boat, but am now convinced that
> > Bolger's method of attachment is sound and does work. In fact, I
> > believe that when that keel is finally on, it will be rock solid.
> > My plan is to build the boat upside down on a strong back. After
> > the bottom is on and the keelson in place, I will build the keel and
> > using the wood plug that I made for the ballast casting, dry
> > assemble the keel and test fit it to the hull. I will predrill my
> > screw placements to the keelson, then insert the lead ballast and
> > finish up the keel. At that point, the keel will be lifted into
> > place and screwed down with lots of thickened epoxy. After, proper
> > fillets will be added to the keel to hull seam. At least this is my
> > plan....
> >
> > Fairwinds,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> -
> I have been following this thread with great interest. My Shoe is
> just a smaller version of the Micro, the lead being about half the
> weight at 200lbs. I was at first concerned that there were no keel
> bolts to hold that lead to the boat, but am now convinced that
> Bolger's method of attachment is sound and does work. In fact, I
> believe that when that keel is finally on, it will be rock solid.
> My plan is to build the boat upside down on a strong back. After
> the bottom is on and the keelson in place, I will build the keel and
> using the wood plug that I made for the ballast casting, dry
> assemble the keel and test fit it to the hull. I will predrill my
> screw placements to the keelson, then insert the lead ballast and
> finish up the keel. At that point, the keel will be lifted into
> place and screwed down with lots of thickened epoxy. After, proper
> fillets will be added to the keel to hull seam. At least this is my
> plan....
>
> Fairwinds,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA

>
> Bruce
>
> I put on most of my keel when with the boat upside down by this I

> keel stringer all solid wood and one half of the sheathing. After

> rolled the boat over onto it's side supported the boat and keel

> and jacked the lead casting up onto high horses even with the

> the lead up to that height is just a matter of incrementaly

> then the other and if your suppports are in about a third of the

> the ends your never really lifting much at any one time. Now with

> level and just a little higher than the ply I put on a heavy load

> and slid the lead over into place. After that it was more epoxy on

> of the casting and framing and the remaining ply was nailed into

> remaining nails into the lead (underside) were driven when the

> upright. I'm sure there was plenty of hand wringing but I don't

> drama.
>
> Buck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
> >Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro
> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:25:54 -0000
> >
> >--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce -
> >
> > > I had forgot that he did not do the sheathing but instead did a
> > > traditional deadwood arrangement. In either method there is

> > > over time of rot getting in. I put several coats of epoxy on

> > > in this area to attempt to put off decaying of internal wood

> > > Only time will tell if this was sufficient. Nothing a Sawsall,
> > > electric plane, and some ingenuity could not solve.
> > >
> >With the traditional method I doubt if one would need a saw to

> >changes. It all comes apart - if and only IF the sikaflex lets

> >idea how long that stuff keeps it's sealing properties?
> >
> >Even back in those days Peter was using his "dish jointed" method

> >sealing joints together. That is, dishing one of the joint

> >areas with a grinder to prevent glue or sealing compound squeeze

> >Photo #11 at this link shows him dishing the top of the keel.
> >
>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
> >
> >I think the biggest challenge is drilling the holes for the

> >accurately. Peter did it by hand and had no problems.
> >
> >Hopefully as long as the keel bolts are kept tight, and the

> >and barrier coat keep out the moisture, it should last a long time
> >without rot setting in. If not, it all comes apart.
> >
> >Nels
> >
> >
>

>From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:25:54 -0000
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@...> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce -
>
> > I had forgot that he did not do the sheathing but instead did a
> > traditional deadwood arrangement. In either method there is concern
> > over time of rot getting in. I put several coats of epoxy on the wood
> > in this area to attempt to put off decaying of internal wood members.
> > Only time will tell if this was sufficient. Nothing a Sawsall,
> > electric plane, and some ingenuity could not solve.
> >
>With the traditional method I doubt if one would need a saw to make
>changes. It all comes apart - if and only IF the sikaflex lets go. Any
>idea how long that stuff keeps it's sealing properties?
>
>Even back in those days Peter was using his "dish jointed" method of
>sealing joints together. That is, dishing one of the joint connection
>areas with a grinder to prevent glue or sealing compound squeeze out.
>Photo #11 at this link shows him dishing the top of the keel.
>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
>
>I think the biggest challenge is drilling the holes for the deadwood
>accurately. Peter did it by hand and had no problems.
>
>Hopefully as long as the keel bolts are kept tight, and the sikaflex
>and barrier coat keep out the moisture, it should last a long time
>without rot setting in. If not, it all comes apart.
>
>Nels
>
>

>
> Bruce -

> I had forgot that he did not do the sheathing but instead did a
> traditional deadwood arrangement. In either method there is concern
> over time of rot getting in. I put several coats of epoxy on the wood
> in this area to attempt to put off decaying of internal wood members.
> Only time will tell if this was sufficient. Nothing a Sawsall,
> electric plane, and some ingenuity could not solve.
>

> This method has the advantage of sparing you the need
> to waterproof extra bolt holes through the hull bottom.
>
> I hindsight, a piece of cake!
> (In truth, a little awkward, but not too bad)
>

On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:44 PM, greg marston wrote:

> Its funny this boat is mentioned, I am thinking of building this
> boat some time before next summer,piccup squared, for fishing and
> sailing in the Columbia River and coastal bays.
>
> Greg

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen" <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
> If you can stand stitch 'n' goo construction I think Jim Michalak's
Piccup
> Pram is a dynamite boat for a newcomer to sailing:
>
>http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/piccup_pram/index.htm
>
There is also a Piccup Squared version that goes together using nails
and glue:

http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/piccup_squared/index.htm

Nels






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> > the free-flooding sections of the keel.
>
>
> <Tongue in cheek>
>
> The free-flooding keel amounts to a small amount of water ballast

>
> Putting buoyant wood below the waterline degrades the stability curve
> somewhat. <smile>
>
> (can you tell I believe in building 'per the plans'?)
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> Blessings Krissie (feeling like a bimbo today)

> Or one could carry a Piccup pram for occasional
> sailing forays.
>
> You build one and I will volunteer to crew;-)
>
> Nels (aka Bimbo Boy)
>
>
>

> the free-flooding sections of the keel.

> it was a major chore to move a 300 lb lead slab into place.

>
> Peter Lenihan did a great job chronicling his building of the Micro
> keel for Lestat. If I were to do it again, I would use his method as
> it was a major chore to move a 300 lb lead slab into place.
>
> Keel bolts would have definately helped. Raise the boat up. Slide the
> keel under. raise the keel with jacks til the bolts rise up through
> the hull, and screw it down with tons of bedding compound. Then the
> sheathing could be done at a leisurely pace.
>
> David Jost

On Oct 12, 2006, at 7:25 AM,eheins@...wrote:

> Kristine,
>
> Welcome to insanity, where we spend significantly more to build
> something with significantly less resale value than we could buy on
> the
> used or new market. Having said that, there is some safety in
> numbers and
> there's a number of us around that fit the description.
>
> A couple things to think about. I started down the road by building
> one of Jim Michalak's dinghy designs. Jim Made the point that the
> dinghy's are an easy way to get familar with reading the plans, and
> the skills needed to build, as well as the fact that with most boats,
> evben those like the Micro that can get into relatively shallow
> water, a dinghy is real convenient.
>
> My 8 ft sailing dinghy took about 80 man hours to complete just for
> reference. It doesn't sail poorly at all, and I use it a lot. From
> the dink, I decided to move up to the 20' Chebacco and took over a
> still upside down hull project from Burton Blaise up in Canada. That
> was 1998. I launched the Chebacco in 2004. So well, the math seems
> to be rather logrithmic in nature. 8ft = 80 man hours 20 ft = 7
> years. Of course I moved house several times and had the normal life
> things happen during that time, but the point remains, that I
> certainly recommend starting small and finding out if you like doing
> this and maybe even getting to use the finished product in a
> reasonable amount of time.
>
> Last suggestion, is to not confuse sailing, learning to sail, and
> boatbuilding necessarily. Find a friend with a sailboat, rent a
> daysailor, or buy a used production boat to learn to sail. That's all
> about fresh air, salt spray and the wind in your hair and it's great!
> Build your boat when you discover what kind of sailing you like,
> and what
> kind of boat would best suit that. Theres almost as much difference
> between sailing my dink and the Chebacco as there is between
> sailingthe
> Chebacco and a 40ft production yacht. I like them all but differently.
> Then when you start building, it's all about sawdust, epoxy fumes
> and gunk
> in your hair. That's not bad either, but it's two different things.
>
> Cheers mate & welcome aboard.
>
>






Chris Curtis
Sandpoint Computers
Office 208-265-1608
Cell 208-610-3062

>
> I keep coming back to when I have time to get away
> it's may be for 2 to maybe 3 days and even living in
> the San Juan Islands you can't get far in that amount
> of time. So that brings we back to going power.
>

> Piccup is just for sailing around in sheltered
> waters, but it's quick,
> cheap and easy to build; quick and easy to launch
> and rig for sailing;
> quick and easy to retreive; easy to trailer (or even
> cartop) wherever you
> want to sail. If you build a Piccup, or one of
> Bolger's small instant
> sailboats, you'll be out sailing soon. :o) If you
> like sailing (it's hard
> to imagine, but some people don't take to it
> <shrug>) you can start a more
> ambitious sailboat project. I'll bet you'll still
> use the Piccup a lot
> after your bigger, more seaworthy, but harder to
> launch and rig, cruising
> boat is done. <g>
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:55:14 -0700, Kristine wrote:
>
> > ...
> > With all this talk about sailing it has got me to
> > thinking about MAYBE learning to sail and building
> a
> > sail boat. (did I just say that???!!)
> > ...
> > So if I do deside to build a sail boat any ideas
> for a
> > first time sailor? To be honest one of the Micros
> fits
> > my idea of what I would look for in a boat. But
> how
> > does one deside what to build? I like tack and
> tape or
> > stich and glue. I don't care to work with all the
> > little battens needed to put a hull together.
> > ...
>
> --
> John <jkohnen@...>
> Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day
> after tomorrow. <Mark
> Twain>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming,
> respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> If you can stand stitch 'n' goo construction I think Jim Michalak's

> Pram is a dynamite boat for a newcomer to sailing:
>
>http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/piccup_pram/index.htm
>

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:55:14 -0700, Kristine wrote:

> ...
> With all this talk about sailing it has got me to
> thinking about MAYBE learning to sail and building a
> sail boat. (did I just say that???!!)
> ...
> So if I do deside to build a sail boat any ideas for a
> first time sailor? To be honest one of the Micros fits
> my idea of what I would look for in a boat. But how
> does one deside what to build? I like tack and tape or
> stich and glue. I don't care to work with all the
> little battens needed to put a hull together.
> ...

--
John <jkohnen@...>
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow. <Mark
Twain>

>
> --
> David,
>
> I was under the impression that with the hard chine and box design,
> the Micro or Shoe or others, actually present a keel profile when
> heeled.
>

>
> Buck -
> The best way to get this was to sail the boat absolutely flat!!!

> not heel. And try your best to prevent oversheeting. This really

> a catboat with a mizzen. Leeway is hard to measure. But, there

> considerably more leeway with 20 degrees of heel vs. none.
>
> > At the risk of beating this to death did that 110 degrees

> leeway.
> > Your figure of 110 is about what I would have expected and would

> a huge
> > improvement on what I've been doing..
> >
>

> At the risk of beating this to death did that 110 degrees include

> Your figure of 110 is about what I would have expected and would be

> improvement on what I've been doing..
>

>From: "ghartc" <gregg.carlson@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:42:08 -0000
>
>Excellent advice. The Micro is especially sensitive to well-cut
>sails, being a short waterline displacement boat, with a low aspect
>rig, and an inefficient keel. All the things that make it otherwise
>handy (and charming). It's also sensitive to pinching/leeway as the
>keel just doesn't provide the lift a deep, high aspect keel can.
>
>I would definitely look for a local loft that understands wooden boats
>and unusual boats, if you can. If they are good, they will at a
>minimum ask you a lot of questions mail-order types won't - and
>hopefully even have a look at the boat. As a compromise, Sailrite
>(caveat - they use my cutting machines) will probably have good canned
>designs for Micros as they've cut them more than once. But there's
>nothing like the local old salt sailmaker.
>
>Old sails get blown out, and the draft increases, which in itself
>isn't bad - the micro needs power - but it will also move back,
>turning the sail into more of a bucket than a wing. The leech carries
>a lot of load and gives up eventually (tarps almost immediately). A
>new suit of sails not only make you go faster, but you'll point higher
>- often a lot higher.
>
>Here's something cool you can do if you want to be scientific. Tape
>some horizontal bars across your sail in one or more places
>(sailmakers have sticky dacron for this, but electical tape might do,
>too). Lay on deck and shoot a digital pic up the sail (make a .bmp
>file). Go to my wesbite at www.carlsondesign.com, scroll down to the
>shareware and download the Sail Analyzer (it's free). You can use it
>to determine you sail's max draft, draft position, and entry and exit
>angles. That way you can tell exactly what your sail's doing "in
>flight" and seem really smart when you talk to your sailmaker.
>
>Gregg Carlson
>
>
>
>
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Choose a local sailmaker, because you need a
> > > face to face relationship with your sailmaker.
> > >
> >
> > Great discussion on Micro pointing. My Micro would tack within 110
> > degrees, but no higher. a chop widened it a little more to the point
> > that if I really needed to get there, I put the motor on. Nantucket
> > sound usually features a decent SW chop on most summer afternoons.
> > The boat went great in Salem sound, and on Boston Harbor!!!
> >
> > that said, the leeway increases as you point higher,but any deeper
> > with the keel and you would have a bear of time getting it on and off
> > the trailer.
> >
> > I had a ball with my Micro, but sold it due to time constraints and
> > family interest. Since then, I have learned how to make sails.
> > Contact Sailrite kits and have them put something together for you.
> > Learning how curvature is put in a sail is really very worthwhile for
> > anyone who loves to sail.
> >
> > Birdwatcher plans still sitting in the tube with a half finished
> > model done. Hopefully will start in earnest over the winter with
> > some pre-fabbed parts in the basement.
> >
> > David Jost
> > " got another year out of Pointy Skiff!!! The boat looks and runs
> > great after much,much,much, epoxy filler and glass.
> >
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Choose a local sailmaker, because you need a
> > face to face relationship with your sailmaker.
> >
>
> Great discussion on Micro pointing. My Micro would tack within 110
> degrees, but no higher. a chop widened it a little more to the point
> that if I really needed to get there, I put the motor on. Nantucket
> sound usually features a decent SW chop on most summer afternoons.
> The boat went great in Salem sound, and on Boston Harbor!!!
>
> that said, the leeway increases as you point higher,but any deeper
> with the keel and you would have a bear of time getting it on and off
> the trailer.
>
> I had a ball with my Micro, but sold it due to time constraints and
> family interest. Since then, I have learned how to make sails.
> Contact Sailrite kits and have them put something together for you.
> Learning how curvature is put in a sail is really very worthwhile for
> anyone who loves to sail.
>
> Birdwatcher plans still sitting in the tube with a half finished
> model done. Hopefully will start in earnest over the winter with
> some pre-fabbed parts in the basement.
>
> David Jost
> " got another year out of Pointy Skiff!!! The boat looks and runs
> great after much,much,much, epoxy filler and glass.
>

>From: "dnjost" <davidjost@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Re: micro pointing ability
>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:52:13 -0000
>
> >
> > Choose a local sailmaker, because you need a
> > face to face relationship with your sailmaker.
> >
>
>Great discussion on Micro pointing. My Micro would tack within 110
>degrees, but no higher. a chop widened it a little more to the point
>that if I really needed to get there, I put the motor on. Nantucket
>sound usually features a decent SW chop on most summer afternoons.
>The boat went great in Salem sound, and on Boston Harbor!!!
>
>that said, the leeway increases as you point higher,but any deeper
>with the keel and you would have a bear of time getting it on and off
>the trailer.
>
>I had a ball with my Micro, but sold it due to time constraints and
>family interest. Since then, I have learned how to make sails.
>Contact Sailrite kits and have them put something together for you.
>Learning how curvature is put in a sail is really very worthwhile for
>anyone who loves to sail.
>
>Birdwatcher plans still sitting in the tube with a half finished
>model done. Hopefully will start in earnest over the winter with
>some pre-fabbed parts in the basement.
>
>David Jost
>" got another year out of Pointy Skiff!!! The boat looks and runs
>great after much,much,much, epoxy filler and glass.
>
>
>

> My other observation is to stick with the plans - no matter what - for
> the first build.

>
>
> Ok I have been reading about the Micros and the Long
> Micros. I would like to know what differs beween the
> two?
>

On Oct 12, 2006, at 7:25 AM,eheins@...wrote:

Kristine,

Welcome to insanity, where we spend significantly more to build
something with significantly less resale value than we could buy on the
used or new market. Having said that, there is some safety in numbers and
there's a number of us around that fit the description.

A couple things to think about. I started down the road by building
one of Jim Michalak's dinghy designs. Jim Made the point that the
dinghy's are an easy way to get familar with reading the plans, and
the skills needed to build, as well as the fact that with most boats,
evben those like the Micro that can get into relat

>
> Choose a local sailmaker, because you need a
> face to face relationship with your sailmaker.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristine Bennett" <femmpaws@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: [bolger] Differences in the Micros


> Ok I have been reading about the Micros and the Long
> Micros. I would like to know what differs beween the
> two?
snip
> I look at the Hot Chilli on Duckworks and I keep going
> back and relook at it over and over. But I know my
> skills to sail it are not there! I would be lucky to
> get the sail up!
>
> Blessings Krissie

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> Ok I have been reading about the Micros and the Long
> Micros. I would like to know what differs beween the
> two?
>
> I kind of gather the long is the longer of the two.
>
> With all this talk about sailing it has got me to
> thinking about MAYBE learning to sail and building a
> sail boat. (did I just say that???!!)
>
> With that said I look at KISS when I build or do
> anyting.
> K-keep I-it S-simple S-stupid
>
> The simpler you can make it the less likely it is
> going to brake to soon. Just look at all the new cars
> today! They are not simple and are prown to not
> working the way the should!
>
> So if I do deside to build a sail boat any ideas for a
> first time sailor? To be honest one of the Micros fits
> my idea of what I would look for in a boat. But how
> does one deside what to build? I like tack and tape or
> stich and glue. I don't care to work with all the
> little battens needed to put a hull together.
>
> But I'm open to ideas and suggestions.
>
> I look at the Hot Chilli on Duckworks and I keep going
> back and relook at it over and over. But I know my
> skills to sail it are not there! I would be lucky to
> get the sail up!
>
> Blessings Krissie
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> I don't know who PCB is recomending as a sailmaker

>

> Ok I have been reading about the Micros and the Long
> Micros. I would like to know what differs beween the
> two?
>
> I kind of gather the long is the longer of the two.
>
> With all this talk about sailing it has got me to
> thinking about MAYBE learning to sail and building a
> sail boat. (did I just say that???!!)
>
> With that said I look at KISS when I build or do
> anyting.
> K-keep I-it S-simple S-stupid
>
> The simpler you can make it the less likely it is
> going to brake to soon. Just look at all the new cars
> today! They are not simple and are prown to not
> working the way the should!
>
> So if I do deside to build a sail boat any ideas for a
> first time sailor? To be honest one of the Micros fits
> my idea of what I would look for in a boat. But how
> does one deside what to build? I like tack and tape or
> stich and glue. I don't care to work with all the
> little battens needed to put a hull together.
>
> But I'm open to ideas and suggestions.
>
> I look at the Hot Chilli on Duckworks and I keep going
> back and relook at it over and over. But I know my
> skills to sail it are not there! I would be lucky to
> get the sail up!
>
> Blessings Krissie
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

>
> In a message dated 10/11/2006 8:12:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
>pcrockett@...writes:
>
> So -- if salt kills rebar inside concrete, are all the ferro-cement
> boats from the 1970s disintegrating now?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> IFFF the concrete is thin enough, cracked enough, and sitting in the salt
> water enough YES, in my very humble and no first hand experience opinion.
>
> Like I said....THICK concrete....no problem....THINNNNNN concrete disaster
> in the making...
>
> The question is.....when do you cross the line?
>
> By definition...if you are REALLY trying to pack in the rebar, you are
> getting it close to the surfaces/edges and each other...how close is too close?
>
> Perhaps a better way is mix in as much lead into the cement as you can
> stand...and just a few pieces of rebar to make sure the concrete holds together.
>
> Blll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- graeme19121984 <graeme19121984@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Bottom rocker makes a continuous flange redundant if
> > there's three
> > spaced fastening points. One hanging from a strap
> > before the rudder
> > post, one from the bow transom, ...now, how and
> > where to place the
> > middle one in Micro? In water the steel keel would
> > have an apparent
> > weight near 350 lbs (cf the lead at near 365lbs), so
> > a light three
> > part tackle at each end could be used to easily
> > lower it off, if
> > ever wanted (been thinking about this for Storm
> > Petrel - allow one
> > end fastening to hinge, so only one end at a time
> > need be offered
> > up - allow for a dolly attachment for ramp
> > transport.)
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
> Good Sir if you think you can attach your keel to the
> bottom of the boat at the boat ramp and get it to
> seal. Be my guest and I wish you all the luck. I know
> how a pain in the butt it is in a shop with all the
> tools.
>
> Myself I'll bolt it to the bottom of my boat with 10
> to 12 bolts so the load is not in a few high stressed
> areas.
>
> Anyway what would be the point to do that it still
> will take the same amount of water to float your boat
> anyway.
>
> Blessings all
> Krissie
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> equivalent displacement speed motor cruiser out there....or is there

>

>From:BllFs6@...
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:19:53 EDT
>
>In a message dated 10/10/2006 11:52:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
>buckcrowley@...writes:
>
>Bill,
>
>I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130 degrees
>and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some
>pretty
>bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago when
>I
>finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the start
>that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was able to
>see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track. I've
>been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has given me
>a
>definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers
>attached
>to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
>side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses the
>same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit rig
>that's the problem.
>To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
>through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will travel
>1.4
>miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to get to
>the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and do
>find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking through
>120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
>
>Thanks for the detailed info..I guess you never did really measure the
>performance when the sails were new then?
>
>As a sorta aside....were the sails from the same place that bolger tells
>you
>to get them from now? How was the quality/cost ratio as far as you were
>concerned?
>
>Another question....would a daggerboard/deep narrow keel/ or at least a
>deeper "full" length keel help the upwind situation significantly? YES I
>understand the downsides to such things (or at least dont want to sidetrack
> this part
>of the discussion with it right now).
>
>Your guesstimate of 2 for your boat in top form compared to 1.4 for a
>"real"
>boat would probably be good enough for me to live with.
>
>How is the performance more along the lines of perpendicular to the wind
>compare to other boats?
>
>
>
>I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it again
>I
>would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
>One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and
>requires
>gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you generaly
>don't get on a boat.
>Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
>tender.
>Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few
>boats
>can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
>Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier and
>faster.
>
>All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in the
>Sea
>of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as our
>in
>home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little fault
>which I'll leave to another time.
>
>Buck Crowley
>
>Thanks for the comment on the birdwatcher...but if im going out....its
>gonna
>be an all day affair...and with my girly arms I aint rowing anything
>bigger
>than a tiny kayak for hours on end...rowing is okay for emergencies or on
>a
>big pond...or traveling DOWN a river....but in my area that probably would
>not
>work too well unless like I said its a kayak. Also tides and trailering
>probably aren't an issue for me, and I wouldnt need a tender here either as
>my
>aqua stilts work just fine.....
>
>Again guys, thanks for the comments....and hopefully there are of help to
>some lurkers out there as well....
>
>Blll
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BllFs6@... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/11/2006 8:12:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
> pcrockett@... writes:
>
> So -- if salt kills rebar inside concrete, are all the ferro-
cement
> boats from the 1970s disintegrating now?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> IFFF the concrete is thin enough, cracked enough, and sitting in
the salt
> water enough YES, in my very humble and no first hand experience
opinion.
>
> Like I said....THICK concrete....no problem....THINNNNNN concrete
disaster
> in the making...
>
> The question is.....when do you cross the line?
>
> By definition...if you are REALLY trying to pack in the rebar, you
are
> getting it close to the surfaces/edges and each other...how close
is too close?
>
> Perhaps a better way is mix in as much lead into the cement as you
can
> stand...and just a few pieces of rebar to make sure the concrete
holds together.
>
> Blll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>From:BllFs6@...
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:19:53 EDT
>
>In a message dated 10/10/2006 11:52:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
>buckcrowley@...writes:
>
>Bill,
>
>I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130 degrees
>and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some
>pretty
>bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago when
>I
>finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the start
>that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was able to
>see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track. I've
>been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has given me
>a
>definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers
>attached
>to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
>side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses the
>same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit rig
>that's the problem.
>To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
>through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will travel
>1.4
>miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to get to
>the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and do
>find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking through
>120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
>
>Thanks for the detailed info..I guess you never did really measure the
>performance when the sails were new then?
>
>As a sorta aside....were the sails from the same place that bolger tells
>you
>to get them from now? How was the quality/cost ratio as far as you were
>concerned?
>
>Another question....would a daggerboard/deep narrow keel/ or at least a
>deeper "full" length keel help the upwind situation significantly? YES I
>understand the downsides to such things (or at least dont want to sidetrack
> this part
>of the discussion with it right now).
>
>Your guesstimate of 2 for your boat in top form compared to 1.4 for a
>"real"
>boat would probably be good enough for me to live with.
>
>How is the performance more along the lines of perpendicular to the wind
>compare to other boats?
>
>
>
>I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it again
>I
>would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
>One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and
>requires
>gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you generaly
>don't get on a boat.
>Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
>tender.
>Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few
>boats
>can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
>Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier and
>faster.
>
>All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in the
>Sea
>of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as our
>in
>home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little fault
>which I'll leave to another time.
>
>Buck Crowley
>
>Thanks for the comment on the birdwatcher...but if im going out....its
>gonna
>be an all day affair...and with my girly arms I aint rowing anything
>bigger
>than a tiny kayak for hours on end...rowing is okay for emergencies or on
>a
>big pond...or traveling DOWN a river....but in my area that probably would
>not
>work too well unless like I said its a kayak. Also tides and trailering
>probably aren't an issue for me, and I wouldnt need a tender here either as
>my
>aqua stilts work just fine.....
>
>Again guys, thanks for the comments....and hopefully there are of help to
>some lurkers out there as well....
>
>Blll
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>From: Mark Balogh <mark@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:22:53 -0400
>
>If you have leech telltales and they are wrapping around the windward
>side of the sail it would mean your sail is under-sheeted or in other
>words let out too far. Is your sail luffing while you are sailing to
>windward? If the telltales are wrapping around the lee side of the
>sail it would mean the sail is sheeted too tightly or over-sheeted.
>This can stall the sail an make the boat less able to point as
>effectively. If yours are wrapped to windward try pulling the sail
>in tighter until they stream parallel to the leech area of the sail.
>It would be odd with a soft sail that telltales would wrap to windward
>without the sail luffing. It sometimes happens on full batten sails
>but not on soft sails. If you can not sheet in enough to stream the
>telltales, maybe you need to increase your sheet purchase. Have your
>tried different adjustments of the snotter line for the sprit boom?
>If they are wrapping to leeward then let the sail out a little to make
>them stream.
>
>Mark
>
>On Oct 11, 2006, at 9:19 AM,BllFs6@...wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 10/10/2006 11:52:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
> >buckcrowley@...writes:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130
> > degrees
> > and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some
> > pretty
> > bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago
> > when I
> > finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the
> > start
> > that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was
> > able to
> > see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track.
> > I've
> > been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has
> > given me a
> > definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers
> > attached
> > to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
> > side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses
> > the
> > same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit
> > rig
> > that's the problem.
> > To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
> > through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will
> > travel 1.4
> > miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to
> > get to
> > the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and
> > do
> > find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking
> > through
> > 120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed info..I guess you never did really measure the
> > performance when the sails were new then?
> >
> > As a sorta aside....were the sails from the same place that bolger
> > tells you
> > to get them from now? How was the quality/cost ratio as far as you
> > were
> > concerned?
> >
> > Another question....would a daggerboard/deep narrow keel/ or at least
> > a
> > deeper "full" length keel help the upwind situation significantly?
> > YES I
> > understand the downsides to such things (or at least dont want to
> > sidetrack this part
> > of the discussion with it right now).
> >
> > Your guesstimate of 2 for your boat in top form compared to 1.4 for a
> > "real"
> > boat would probably be good enough for me to live with.
> >
> > How is the performance more along the lines of perpendicular to the
> > wind
> > compare to other boats?
> >
> >
> > I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it
> > again I
> > would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
> > One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and
> > requires
> > gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you
> > generaly
> > don't get on a boat.
> > Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
> > tender.
> > Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few
> > boats
> > can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
> > Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier
> > and
> > faster.
> >
> > All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in
> > the Sea
> > of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as
> > our in
> > home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little
> > fault
> > which I'll leave to another time.
> >
> > Buck Crowley
> >
> > Thanks for the comment on the birdwatcher...but if im going
> > out....its gonna
> > be an all day affair...and with my girly arms I aint rowing anything
> > bigger
> > than a tiny kayak for hours on end...rowing is okay for emergencies
> > or on a
> > big pond...or traveling DOWN a river....but in my area that probably
> > would not
> > work too well unless like I said its a kayak. Also tides and
> > trailering
> > probably aren't an issue for me, and I wouldnt need a tender here
> > either as my
> > aqua stilts work just fine.....
> >
> > Again guys, thanks for the comments....and hopefully there are of
> > help to
> > some lurkers out there as well....
> >
> > Blll
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> I'll bet most of them are not including the loss for
> leeway, which can be substantial.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BllFs6@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/10/2006 11:52:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
> buckcrowley@... writes:
>
> Bill,
>
> I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through
130 degrees
> and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have
some pretty
> bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years
ago when I
> finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from
the start
> that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I
was able to
> see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps
track. I've
> been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has
given me a
> definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that
streamers attached
> to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the
windward
> side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which
uses the
> same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not
sprit rig
> that's the problem.
> To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will
tack
> through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will
travel 1.4
> miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to
get to
> the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could
and do
> find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me
tacking through
> 120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much
better.
>
> Thanks for the detailed info..I guess you never did really measure
the
> performance when the sails were new then?
>
> As a sorta aside....were the sails from the same place that bolger
tells you
> to get them from now? How was the quality/cost ratio as far as you
were
> concerned?
>
> Another question....would a daggerboard/deep narrow keel/ or at
least a
> deeper "full" length keel help the upwind situation significantly?
YES I
> understand the downsides to such things (or at least dont want to
sidetrack this part
> of the discussion with it right now).
>
> Your guesstimate of 2 for your boat in top form compared to 1.4
for a "real"
> boat would probably be good enough for me to live with.
>
> How is the performance more along the lines of perpendicular to
the wind
> compare to other boats?
>
>
>
> I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do
it again I
> would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
> One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy
and requires
> gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you
generaly
> don't get on a boat.
> Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight
foot
> tender.
> Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were
few boats
> can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our
coasts.
> Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches
easier and
> faster.
>
> All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised
in the Sea
> of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as
well as our in
> home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one
little fault
> which I'll leave to another time.
>
> Buck Crowley
>
> Thanks for the comment on the birdwatcher...but if im going
out....its gonna
> be an all day affair...and with my girly arms I aint rowing
anything bigger
> than a tiny kayak for hours on end...rowing is okay for
emergencies or on a
> big pond...or traveling DOWN a river....but in my area that
probably would not
> work too well unless like I said its a kayak. Also tides and
trailering
> probably aren't an issue for me, and I wouldnt need a tender here
either as my
> aqua stilts work just fine.....
>
> Again guys, thanks for the comments....and hopefully there are of
help to
> some lurkers out there as well....
>
> Blll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Oct 11, 2006, at 9:19 AM,BllFs6@...wrote:

> In a message dated 10/10/2006 11:52:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
>buckcrowley@...writes:
>
> Bill,
>
> I can only speak about my boat which I mentioned tacks through 130
> degrees
> and then only in good conditions. My feeling is that I must have some
> pretty
> bad sails. I got them from Common Sense Designs about eight years ago
> when I
> finished the boat so they've got some miles on them. I knew from the
> start
> that the boat would not be a worldbeater upwind but recently I was
> able to
> see that we were tacking through 130 degrees based on my gps track.
> I've
> been asking around to see how other micros perform but nobody has
> given me a
> definitive answe..One reason I suspect the sails is that streamers
> attached
> to the leach don't stream but wrap around the leach on the windward
> side..The other reason is that I also built a bolger surf which uses
> the
> same type of sail and it goes very well to windward so its not sprit
> rig
> that's the problem.
> To answer your question my calculations tell me a boat that will tack
> through 90 degrees (which I believe is average performance) will
> travel 1.4
> miles to move upwind 1 mile. My Micro needs to cover 2.36 miles to
> get to
> the same spot upwind. Add in a little adverse current and I could and
> do
> find myself going backwards. Now if new sails would get me tacking
> through
> 120 degrees my 2.36 miles would become 2 miles which is much better.
>
> Thanks for the detailed info..I guess you never did really measure the
> performance when the sails were new then?
>
> As a sorta aside....were the sails from the same place that bolger
> tells you
> to get them from now? How was the quality/cost ratio as far as you
> were
> concerned?
>
> Another question....would a daggerboard/deep narrow keel/ or at least
> a
> deeper "full" length keel help the upwind situation significantly?
> YES I
> understand the downsides to such things (or at least dont want to
> sidetrack this part
> of the discussion with it right now).
>
> Your guesstimate of 2 for your boat in top form compared to 1.4 for a
> "real"
> boat would probably be good enough for me to live with.
>
> How is the performance more along the lines of perpendicular to the
> wind
> compare to other boats?
>
>
> I don't know how you plan on using your boat but if I were to do it
> again I
> would build the Birdwatcher 1 for the following reasons
> One. It requires no motor. Even the best motor stinks is noisy and
> requires
> gas onboard. Oars on the other hand provide exercise which you
> generaly
> don't get on a boat.
> Two. You don't need a tender. My fifteen foot boat needs an eight foot
> tender.
> Three. Birdwatcher can dryout upright. This allows you to go were few
> boats
> can up long estuarys and inlets the real pretty places on our coasts.
> Four. It tows better. It's lower and lighter. It also launches easier
> and
> faster.
>
> All that being said I do love my micro Our family of four cruised in
> the Sea
> of Cortez in it the San Juan Islnds and the coast of Maine as well as
> our in
> home San Francisco. It is a nice little boat and has only one little
> fault
> which I'll leave to another time.
>
> Buck Crowley
>
> Thanks for the comment on the birdwatcher...but if im going
> out....its gonna
> be an all day affair...and with my girly arms I aint rowing anything
> bigger
> than a tiny kayak for hours on end...rowing is okay for emergencies
> or on a
> big pond...or traveling DOWN a river....but in my area that probably
> would not
> work too well unless like I said its a kayak. Also tides and
> trailering
> probably aren't an issue for me, and I wouldnt need a tender here
> either as my
> aqua stilts work just fine.....
>
> Again guys, thanks for the comments....and hopefully there are of
> help to
> some lurkers out there as well....
>
> Blll
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> In a message dated 10/11/2006 6:15:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
>alpickman@...writes:
>
> All very true.
>
> In northern climates they use epoxy coated rebar for highway bridge decks,
> as the salt used for ice control tends to soak into the concrete, causeing
> accelerated corrosion on teh steel.
>
> Allan
> in the hills
>
>
>
>
> Yep, thats what reminded me to talk about coated rebar in the first place
>
> Which reminds me that it might be worth looking for already coated rebar in
> you local area if the rebar keel route is your chosen plan of attack...or
> maybe even a nearby larger city...now once you cut the ends you'll need to give
> that area a new coat or two.
>
> If you REALLY wanted to pack rebar in you might wanna go this route:
>
> Hold it together with epoxy, maybe even with say about 50 percent of epoxy
> volume being relatively fine lead shot, and either mix in short glass fibers as
> well as weave in or encapsulate the whole thing with some glass cloth.
>
> But again probably the easiest/most effective non molten lead route is the
> solid steel keel, or baring that a hollow but narrow welded up steel keel with
> as much lead/epoxy as you can effectively pack in there..or if you are really
> lucky maybe you could get your hands on some depleted uranium :)
>
> Blll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> In a message dated 10/10/2006 3:21:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
>donschultz@...writes:
>
> "though you'd want to be cafeful to not include SOOO much rebar that
> the resulting structer was WEAKER than concrete alone...."
>
> Not much chance of that. Concrete is NOT very strong compared to
> steel. It is not very dense compared to steel.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes....that is techincally true but not practically true....
>
> You can only get concrete so "thin" before it doesnt behave like concrete
> anymore...
>
> As an example....surround a piece of rebar with a thickness of 3 inches of
> concrete on all sides and that sucker will last forever...
>
> Surround same rebar with a thickness of 0.3 millimeters and within year you
> will have a naked rusted piece of rebar....
>
> IFFFFF the concrete is the only thing holding the various pieces of rebar
> TOGETHER.....the thickeness of the concrete BETTER be enough to last awhile
> before cracking and spalling....
>
> Which brings up another point....if I was putting said rebar in concrete in
> a keel, particularly for a boat to be used in saltwater....I would coat the
> rebar with something before putting it in the concrete.....a thin layer or 2 of
> epoxy and perhaps another one or two at the ends would probably be a good
> idea.....once enough water/oxygen/salt reaches the rebar and starts creating
> rust your rebar/concrete maxtrix's days are numbered...
>
> Bllll
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>From: "Derek Waters" <dgw@...>
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:34:11 -0700
>
>"Mine ....tacks through 130 degrees."
>
>Just to be clear, you are saying that your boat will point no higher than
>65
>degrees?
>
>Hmmm. That's not been my experience with ours. She'll make some forward
>progress tacking through 90 degrees, i.e. tacking so the point dead abeam
>is
>the new heading. That's easy to tell without taking the cover off the
>compass or firing up the GPS, so I notice it. We don't always sail that
>pinched though, as our wind is often light, and there's more progress to be
>made footing faster on broader tacks, or so it seems. At 90 degrees we're
>probably making ugly leeway. I don't have the GPS at hand to look at
>tracks,
>but I can swear we do better than 130.
>
>I built our boat, so I can say with certainty that she's not particularly
>well polished, although everything down there is as straight as it's meant
>to be. At the risk of 'teaching my Grandmother to suck eggs', you _are_
>trimming the mizzen to keep the helm balanced, eh?
>
>Good luck
>Derek
>

>From:BllFs6@...
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] micro pointing ability
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:08:06 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 10/10/2006 10:09:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
>bruce@...writes:
>
>On 10/9/06, 9buck crowley <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Has anyone out there any first hand knowledge of the "Micros" pointing
> > ability. Mine which I feel was very well made, fair smooth etc.' tacks
> > through 130 degrees. That's not very good. I'm considering having new
>sails
> > made to see if that's the problem but I don't want to go to the
>expense if
> > the problem is with the design....
> >
> > Buck
>
>
>I think mine points better than 130. The quality of the cut of the
>sail, plus your technique, matters. If I need to get to windward in a
>hurry, I use my motor.
>
>A Micro will never point as high as the expensive, high tech / high
>stress sloops. But the sloops lose when your goal is simplicity,
>comfort and ease.
>
>
>
>Hi guys..
>
>This brings up a point I've wondered about given that old shoe and micro
>are
>two of my favorite/most likely if anything to be built designs....
>
>Take a Bolger Micro,
>
>Now take a similar "normal" sailboat....nice commercial one say, but by the
>same token not a gold plated, state of the art, mega buck absolute best
>carbon
> graphite racing machine...
>
>Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length and
>breadth,
>a nice smooth "normal" shaped hull, a real proper fixed keel, modern
>"normal" sail set up, and about the same all up weight and load carrying
>capacity....
>
>Now, both boats are trying to run a course that is directly upwind,
>Obviously, they can't so they tack back and forth, going from "side to
>side" but
>overall they do make upwind progress...
>
>How does a Bolger Micro compare with the "normal" commercial boat? In a
>light wind or medium wind or strong wind?
>
>50 percent of the normal one? 75 percent as fast? 90?
>
>And allow for a tacking angle that allows for the fasted NET upwind
>progress
>for each rather than fastest "apparent" speed etc etc
>
>Forgive my lack of proper sailing terms...
>
>Blll
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> Bottom rocker makes a continuous flange redundant if
> there's three
> spaced fastening points. One hanging from a strap
> before the rudder
> post, one from the bow transom, ...now, how and
> where to place the
> middle one in Micro? In water the steel keel would
> have an apparent
> weight near 350 lbs (cf the lead at near 365lbs), so
> a light three
> part tackle at each end could be used to easily
> lower it off, if
> ever wanted (been thinking about this for Storm
> Petrel - allow one
> end fastening to hinge, so only one end at a time
> need be offered
> up - allow for a dolly attachment for ramp
> transport.)
>
> Graeme
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gmcatee@... wrote:
>
> Another option might be what Buehler discusses in his book: weld up
or get someone to weld up a steel "box" in the shape of the ballast
portion of your keel, including a framework to hold the bolts that will
stick up through your deadwood/keel/etc... and the fill the box with
concrete and scrap metal, or if you need a higher density lead (I think
somewher else I read of someone doing the same and using used lead tire
weights in the concrete for higher density).
>
> --Gabriel

>
> Another option might be what Buehler discusses in his book: weld up

>
> --Gabriel
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:09:22
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro
>
> On 10/9/06, BllFs6@...: <mailto:BllFs6%40aol.com> wrote:
>
> > And if you can't do that, I'm sure going the cut steel plating

> > pretty decent/cheap substitute....and probably much better than

> > version..
>
> Just FYI, the Bolger design holds the lead casting to the hull by

> the lead between two sheets of plywood, and with nails. I used the
> short heavy guage nails they sell for use with 'Simpson Strong-

>
> Nail SS10D, available at local hardware store.
>
>http://www.strongti:

>
> A steel plate keel could work, but won't accept the nails.
>

>
> On 10/10/06, BllFs6@... wrote:
>
> > Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length

>

> I don't think a commercial sailboat even exists that is only 15'4"
> long, and which is a comfortable cruiser that sleeps two.
>
> The max hull speed is determined by length, and all the longer

> will pass a Micro because of their higher max hull speed. I have
> found that I can outrun the longer sloops (barely, and when their
> skipper is drunk) while sailing downwind.
>
> In short, if you are fixated on speed, or on passing people, a Micro
> isn't your best choice.
>
> Want to go fast upwind? Use your motor.
>
> Want a comfortable, simple, safe, small cruiser for two? A Micro

>

>

> Want a comfortable, simple, safe, small cruiser for two? A Micro is

> Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length and breadth,

On 10/9/06, 9buck crowley <buckcrowley@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone out there any first hand knowledge of the "Micros" pointing
> ability. Mine which I feel was very well made, fair smooth etc.' tacks
> through 130 degrees. That's not very good. I'm considering having new
sails
> made to see if that's the problem but I don't want to go to the expense if
> the problem is with the design....
>
> Buck


I think mine points better than 130. The quality of the cut of the
sail, plus your technique, matters. If I need to get to windward in a
hurry, I use my motor.

A Micro will never point as high as the expensive, high tech / high
stress sloops. But the sloops lose when your goal is simplicity,
comfort and ease.



Hi guys..

This brings up a point I've wondered about given that old shoe and micro are
two of my favorite/most likely if anything to be built designs....

Take a Bolger Micro,

Now take a similar "normal" sailboat....nice commercial one say, but by the
same token not a gold plated, state of the art, mega buck absolute best carbon
graphite racing machine...

Or in other words a nice commercial saiboat with similar length and breadth,
a nice smooth "normal" shaped hull, a real proper fixed keel, modern
"normal" sail set up, and about the same all up weight and load carrying capacity....

Now, both boats are trying to run a course that is directly upwind,
Obviously, they can't so they tack back and forth, going from "side to side" but
overall they do make upwind progress...

How does a Bolger Micro compare with the "normal" commercial boat? In a
light wind or medium wind or strong wind?

50 percent of the normal one? 75 percent as fast? 90?

And allow for a tacking angle that allows for the fasted NET upwind progress
for each rather than fastest "apparent" speed etc etc

Forgive my lack of proper sailing terms...

Blll


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> No I said nothing about the center of gravity. I was
> talking about CoB or Center of Buoyancy. No the two
> are not the same. Dave Geer has a great book call
> "Nature of Boats" and it has a very good chapter that
> covers CoG and CoB.
>
> Your Cob will change with the amount of heel to the
> boat and how it's loaded both with stuff and sail. It
> moves all the time some times a little sometimes a
> lot.
>
> Where as the CoG it changes with the load placement in
> the craft only. But the load can be people, gear and
> goods and free flowing water in the hull as well. You
> know bilge water.
>
> Blessings Krissie
>
> --- donm172001 <Don_Maurer@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Like I said, if the center of gravity stays the
>> same, it doesn't
>> matter what material you use for the ballast. You
>> are assuming the
>> center of gravity will be higher with feathers.
>>
>>
>>

> Hello,
>
> Has anyone out there any first hand knowledge of the "Micros" pointing
> ability. Mine which I feel was very well made, fair smooth etc.' tacks
> through 130 degrees. That's not very good. I'm considering having new sails
> made to see if that's the problem but I don't want to go to the expense if
> the problem is with the design....
>
> Buck

> Depending how far you ran you flange plate fwd and up

> AF2 and AF3 require a limited water line beam due to the
> choice of oar auxilliary, whereas Cynthia J is a (sharpie) cat boat
> rigged for moving in the least breath of air...

On 10/9/06,BllFs6@...: <mailto:BllFs6%40aol.com> wrote:

> And if you can't do that, I'm sure going the cut steel plating would be a
> pretty decent/cheap substitute....and probably much better than the concrete
> version..

Just FYI, the Bolger design holds the lead casting to the hull by sandwiching
the lead between two sheets of plywood, and with nails. I used the
short heavy guage nails they sell for use with 'Simpson Strong-Ties'.

Nail SS10D, available at local hardware store.

http://www.strongti:<http://www.strongtie.com/products/connectors/nails.html> e.com/products/connectors/nails.html

A steel plate keel could work, but won't accept the nails.

On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Bruce Hallman wrote:

> On 10/9/06,BllFs6@...<BllFs6@...> wrote:
>
>> First..
>
>> Second method...
>
> Both these suggestions make something simple more complex.
>
> The genius of Phil Bolger is elegant simplicity.
>
> Here is a photo from my lead fin keel pour.
>
>http://sports.webshots.com/photo/1121100644051159125qadyRL
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
>
> LOL that is true. But if you have a plate flange made
> to fit the hull then drill and countersink for your
> bolts. Then have your keel slab welded to the flange
> (my choise would be Coreweld) then you can have is
> blasted and seal it with epoxy or any number of paints
> then you are ready to bed it and bolt it in place.
>
> Deppending how far you ran you flange plate fwd and up
> the stem feel sorry for the poor sod that hits your
> bow!
>
> Blessings Krissie
> >
> > A steel plate keel could work, but won't accept the
> > nails.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@>
wrote:
>
> > The Chebacco is a much better boat, but also more of a building
> > project. The big question on the Cynthia J is about the cabin.
If you
> > don't need a cabin boat, you can build something much simpler.
If you
> > really want a cabin boat, CJ may not be good enough. The cabin
has a
> > lot of room, but it's not really very comfortable to use.
> >
> If one wants simplicity then in this regard, the commentary on
> Michalak's AF2 and AF3 is of interest. Particularly regarding
raising
> cabin height.
>
>http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/af2/index.htm
>
> Nels
>

>
> A steel plate keel could work, but won't accept the
> nails.
>

>From:BllFs6@...
>Reply-To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:30:11 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 10/9/2006 10:22:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
>bruce@...writes:
>
>Both these suggestions make something simple more complex.
>
>The genius of Phil Bolger is elegant simplicity.
>
>Here is a photo from my lead fin keel pour.
>
>_http://sports.webshots.com/photo/1121100644051159125qadyRL_
>(http://sports.webshots.com/photo/1121100644051159125qadyRL)
>
>
>
>
>
>Yes. I agree.....
>
>Its just some folks have a real aversion to pouring molten lead.....not
>that
>it CANT be downright dangerous and unhealthy if you do it WRONG...
>
>Blll
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> And if you can't do that, I'm sure going the cut steel plating would be a
> pretty decent/cheap substitute....and probably much better than the concrete
> version..

> Its just some folks have a real aversion to pouring molten lead.....not that
> it CANT be downright dangerous and unhealthy if you do it WRONG...

> The Chebacco is a much better boat, but also more of a building
> project. The big question on the Cynthia J is about the cabin. If you
> don't need a cabin boat, you can build something much simpler. If you
> really want a cabin boat, CJ may not be good enough. The cabin has a
> lot of room, but it's not really very comfortable to use.
>

> First..

> Second method...

> Anyone who is leery about pouring a lead keel, or interested in an
> improved Cynthia J should consider the basic plywood Chebacco. The $60
> plans from Dynamite Payson have to be the best bargain in the boat
> plans world today!
>http://www.instantboats.com/chebacco.html

> A simple 1 1/2" thick slab of lead is so simple, easy and elegant.
>

>
> I am not a designer by any means. But I have see boats with concrete
> and scrap iron in the keels.

>
>
> I am not a designer by any means. But I have see boats with concrete
> and scrap iron in the keels. The Tideway 14 for example, if I recall
> correctly, has a keel built like that. I fished on a 43 foot boat
> (homebuilt back in the 30's in Alaska) for awhile and the entire
> bottom of the boat was filled with it. Darn seaworthy boat I might
> add. But like I said, I don't know if it would work on this design
> and type of craft..

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robb" <Robb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there. I don't know about concrete but I have heard of a few
> people using lead shot encased in epoxy. This eliminates melting
of
> the lead...but you have to make the keel a little longer or
thicker to
> account for the decrease in density of the epoxy. Robb
>
> Another option when using lead shot or lead billets enclased in
epoxy
> is to add a couple extra billets after launch to bring the boat
down
> to the designed waterline. This is what Dan Gonneau did in his Long
> Micro.
>
> He put them under the entrance step below the companionway. The
> advantage of this is that you can remove them if you want to carry
> additional stores or passengers. Also the weight is centered over
the
> CoB for more reliable tacking than extending the weight fore and
aft
> in the keel.
>
> Nels
>

>
> Hi there. I don't know about concrete but I have heard of a few

>
> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete? Messing around
> with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.
>

> They are 2 different boats.

----- Original Message -----
From: marcoviniciomasoni
To: bolger
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:08 AM
Subject: Re:[bolger] Keel on the Micro


The fusion of the lead is difficult more psycologically than practically. I have done it after have thought two months. I have found however an easy and comfortable solution, thank also a suggestion of Michalak: you divide in more depart the ballast. I have divided it in three parts. That makes simpler the fusion and makes then more manageable (but not easy) the assemblage of the ballasts on the keel.
The procedure for the fusion is very simple
no revolving pipe
no faucet
no complicated structure
only a big pipe of iron, two bricks, a cylinder of propan and a nozzle for join.
The pipe lie on the bricks with a light inclination toward the form in wood. You get warm the pipe from out or directly directing the flame on the wrecks of lead.
The wood is smeared first with water glass.
At the end doesn't need to smooth ballast. you have three perfect and rough pieces (excellent for the epoxy).
The assemblage of the three pieces happens using the rear of the form like slide and a krick for car. You make slip each piece against the keel, smear it with thickened glue, straight it and screw it from behind with bronze screw. I hope my terrible English is enough.
I have put in the forum some photos of the whole procedure.http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos/browse/277b
---------- Initial Header -----------

From :bolger@yahoogroups.com
To :bolger@yahoogroups.com
Cc :
Date : Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:31:05 -0000
Subject : [bolger] Keel on the Micro

> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete? Messing around
> with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.
>
>
>
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

> I don't think that is quite right. What ever you use it will be

> lighter by the amount of water it displaces that is what makes

> float. So what is commen is to keep the shape but give it more

> ie leverage so the same weight has the same efect with the

> helping useing concreat rather then lead.

>

> Jon

>

> --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@> wrote:

> >

> > Dusty I don't think it would be that hard but the

> > thing you are going to need to keep in mind is,

> > concrete looses about half it mass when it is in salt

> > water.

> >

> > It you have a 2000 lb block of the stuff and hang it

> > by a scale in seawater it would be just over 1000 lbs.

> > I was told this by a number of people that set

> > moorings here in the islands.

> >

> > To support this concrete with stone is 120 to 150 lbs

> > per cubic ft. and seawater is 64 lbs per cubic ft.

> >

> >

> > So with that said if you need 300 lbs of lead you are

> > going to need 600 lbs of crete at the same place from

> > the CoB. You could get away with less if you made the

> > keel deeper so it would have a longer lever arm from

> > CoB.

> >

> > Krissie

> >

> > --- dustymick64 <dustymick64@ > wrote:

> >

> > > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change

> > > the keel from the

> > > one designed for it to a box type filled with

> > > concrete? Messing around

> > > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool

> > > with.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

> > Do You Yahoo!?

> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

> > http://mail. yahoo.com

> >

>

> Like I said, if the center of gravity stays the
> same, it doesn't
> matter what material you use for the ballast. You
> are assuming the
> center of gravity will be higher with feathers.
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: donm172001
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: It doesn't matter whether you use 300 lb. of lead or 300 lbs of feathers


Like I said, if the center of gravity stays the same, it doesn't
matter what material you use for the ballast. You are assuming the
center of gravity will be higher with feathers.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it does matter what you use for keel weight!
>
> Lead is 707 lbs per cu.ft.
> Steel is 489 lbs percu.ft.
> cast iron is 442 lbs per cu.ft.
>
> I don't have a listing for feathers in my book but it
> would all deppend on how much it weighted per cu.ft.
> but I would guess it would be lighter then seawater at
> 64 lbs per cu.ft. So feathers would not be a good use
> for ballest if it was was placed underwater.
>
> If you want the most bang per cu.ft. you have gold at
> 1206 lbs per cu.ft.
> Tungsten at 1204 lbs per cu.ft.
> And the very best would be Platinum at 1339 lbs per
> cu.ft.
>
> Waight inside a hull is one thing but when it's in
> direct contact with water as in a keel (swing keel,
> bulb keel, fin keel or even a straight keel) it all
> comes down to how much waight you put in a given space
> (as in lbs per cu.ft) over the amount of water you are
> displaceing for that same number of cu.ft. Then the
> other thing is the lever arm it has over the Cob of
> the hull. The two work together to right to boat.
>
> I know Phil Bolger can explane the whole thing better
> then I can.
>
> Krissie
>
> --- donm172001 <Don_Maurer@...> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter whether you use 300 lb. of lead or
> > 300 lbs of
> > feathers. As long as the center of gravity is in the
> > same place, you
> > will have the same righting moment. Of course the
> > keel also acts as
> > a foil underwater, so you will pick up some
> > secondary stability from
> > the keel with the lighter ballast due to the
> > necessary size increase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/6/2006


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donm172001" <Don_Maurer@...> wrote:
>
> Like I said, if the center of gravity stays the same, it doesn't
> matter what material you use for the ballast. You are assuming the
> center of gravity will be higher with feathers.
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it does matter what you use for keel weight!
> >
> > Lead is 707 lbs per cu.ft.
> > Steel is 489 lbs percu.ft.
> > cast iron is 442 lbs per cu.ft.
> >
> > I don't have a listing for feathers in my book but it
> > would all deppend on how much it weighted per cu.ft.
> > but I would guess it would be lighter then seawater at
> > 64 lbs per cu.ft. So feathers would not be a good use
> > for ballest if it was was placed underwater.
> >
> > If you want the most bang per cu.ft. you have gold at
> > 1206 lbs per cu.ft.
> > Tungsten at 1204 lbs per cu.ft.
> > And the very best would be Platinum at 1339 lbs per
> > cu.ft.
> >
> > Waight inside a hull is one thing but when it's in
> > direct contact with water as in a keel (swing keel,
> > bulb keel, fin keel or even a straight keel) it all
> > comes down to how much waight you put in a given space
> > (as in lbs per cu.ft) over the amount of water you are
> > displaceing for that same number of cu.ft. Then the
> > other thing is the lever arm it has over the Cob of
> > the hull. The two work together to right to boat.
> >
> > I know Phil Bolger can explane the whole thing better
> > then I can.
> >
> > Krissie
> >
> > --- donm172001 <Don_Maurer@> wrote:
> >
> > > It doesn't matter whether you use 300 lb. of lead or
> > > 300 lbs of
> > > feathers. As long as the center of gravity is in the
> > > same place, you
> > > will have the same righting moment. Of course the
> > > keel also acts as
> > > a foil underwater, so you will pick up some
> > > secondary stability from
> > > the keel with the lighter ballast due to the
> > > necessary size increase.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it does matter what you use for keel weight!
>
> Lead is 707 lbs per cu.ft.
> Steel is 489 lbs percu.ft.
> cast iron is 442 lbs per cu.ft.
>
> I don't have a listing for feathers in my book but it
> would all deppend on how much it weighted per cu.ft.
> but I would guess it would be lighter then seawater at
> 64 lbs per cu.ft. So feathers would not be a good use
> for ballest if it was was placed underwater.
>
> If you want the most bang per cu.ft. you have gold at
> 1206 lbs per cu.ft.
> Tungsten at 1204 lbs per cu.ft.
> And the very best would be Platinum at 1339 lbs per
> cu.ft.
>
> Waight inside a hull is one thing but when it's in
> direct contact with water as in a keel (swing keel,
> bulb keel, fin keel or even a straight keel) it all
> comes down to how much waight you put in a given space
> (as in lbs per cu.ft) over the amount of water you are
> displaceing for that same number of cu.ft. Then the
> other thing is the lever arm it has over the Cob of
> the hull. The two work together to right to boat.
>
> I know Phil Bolger can explane the whole thing better
> then I can.
>
> Krissie
>
> --- donm172001 <Don_Maurer@...> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter whether you use 300 lb. of lead or
> > 300 lbs of
> > feathers. As long as the center of gravity is in the
> > same place, you
> > will have the same righting moment. Of course the
> > keel also acts as
> > a foil underwater, so you will pick up some
> > secondary stability from
> > the keel with the lighter ballast due to the
> > necessary size increase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> Yes it does matter what you use for keel weight!
>
> Lead is 707 lbs per cu.ft.
> Steel is 489 lbs percu.ft.
> cast iron is 442 lbs per cu.ft.

>
> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete?

> It doesn't matter whether you use 300 lb. of lead or
> 300 lbs of
> feathers. As long as the center of gravity is in the
> same place, you
> will have the same righting moment. Of course the
> keel also acts as
> a foil underwater, so you will pick up some
> secondary stability from
> the keel with the lighter ballast due to the
> necessary size increase.
>
>
>
>

> There may be a better way yet. Use steel plate, 1" is
> 40.8 lbs per sq.ft. 1 1/4" is 51 lbs per sq.ft. 1 1/2"
> is 61.2 lbs per sq.ft and 2" is 81.6 lbs per sq.ft.
>
> And the nice thing most steel warehouses will cut the
> plate to your drawings
>
> Krissie
>
> --- dustymick64 <dustymick64@...> wrote:
>
> > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change
> > the keel from the
> > one designed for it to a box type filled with
> > concrete? Messing around
> > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool
> > with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 fusion of the lead is difficult more psycologically than

> The procedure for the fusion is very simple
> no revolving pipe
> no faucet
> no complicated structure
> only a big pipe of iron, two bricks, a cylinder of propan and a

> The pipe lie on the bricks with a light inclination toward the

> The wood is smeared first with water glass.
> At the end doesn't need to smooth ballast. you have three

> The assemblage of the three pieces happens using the rear of the

> I have put in the forum some photos of the whole procedure.

> ---------- Initial Header -----------
>
> From :bolger@yahoogroups.com
> To :bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Cc :
> Date : Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:31:05 -0000
> Subject : [bolger] Keel on the Micro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from

> > one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete? Messing

> > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete? Messing around
> with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I don't think that is quite right. What ever you use it will be
> lighter by the amount of water it displaces that is what makes

> float. So what is commen is to keep the shape but give it more

> ie leverage so the same weight has the same efect with the

> helping useing concreat rather then lead.
>
> Jon
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@> wrote:
> >
> > Dusty I don't think it would be that hard but the
> > thing you are going to need to keep in mind is,
> > concrete looses about half it mass when it is in salt
> > water.
> >
> > It you have a 2000 lb block of the stuff and hang it
> > by a scale in seawater it would be just over 1000 lbs.
> > I was told this by a number of people that set
> > moorings here in the islands.
> >
> > To support this concrete with stone is 120 to 150 lbs
> > per cubic ft. and seawater is 64 lbs per cubic ft.
> >
> >
> > So with that said if you need 300 lbs of lead you are
> > going to need 600 lbs of crete at the same place from
> > the CoB. You could get away with less if you made the
> > keel deeper so it would have a longer lever arm from
> > CoB.
> >
> > Krissie
> >
> > --- dustymick64 <dustymick64@> wrote:
> >
> > > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change
> > > the keel from the
> > > one designed for it to a box type filled with
> > > concrete? Messing around
> > > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool
> > > with.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> Dusty I don't think it would be that hard but the
> thing you are going to need to keep in mind is,
> concrete looses about half it mass when it is in salt
> water.
>
> It you have a 2000 lb block of the stuff and hang it
> by a scale in seawater it would be just over 1000 lbs.
> I was told this by a number of people that set
> moorings here in the islands.
>
> To support this concrete with stone is 120 to 150 lbs
> per cubic ft. and seawater is 64 lbs per cubic ft.
>
>
> So with that said if you need 300 lbs of lead you are
> going to need 600 lbs of crete at the same place from
> the CoB. You could get away with less if you made the
> keel deeper so it would have a longer lever arm from
> CoB.
>
> Krissie
>
> --- dustymick64 <dustymick64@...> wrote:
>
> > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change
> > the keel from the
> > one designed for it to a box type filled with
> > concrete? Messing around
> > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool
> > with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change
> the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with
> concrete? Messing around
> with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool
> with.
>
>
>
>
>

> Was wondering how difficult it would be to change
> the keel from the
> one designed for it to a box type filled with
> concrete? Messing around
> with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool
> with.
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Paul,
> I found that a simple Coleman propane camp stove melted the lead

>
> Sincerely,
> Gene T.
> "A house ashore is but a boat, so poorly
> built it will not float ---- "
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Paul <p_hardy@...>
> To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2006 9:24:03 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Keel on the Micro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A few pounds melts easily but large amounts get

>
> harder. For the Super Brick I was melting weights to make the the
>
> ballast for the rudder. Small pots - 8 pounds or so each - took a
>
> long time with a hot plate. For the larger weight on the bilge
>
> board I am looking for a high powered propane burner, I am

>
> about a unit designed for turkey frying.
>
>
>
> And pure lead is very hard to machine well. It is very soft and
>
> tends to deform rather than cut or shape. I know antimony was

>
> added to the casting blocks I used years ago for making bullets.
>
> Its supposed to make the lead harder which should help machining
>
> greatly.
>
>
>
> Paul H
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, Mark Albanese <marka@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The difference in weight will make a difference in the power to
>
> carry
>
> > sail. Check this, but I think lead weighs about 5 times more

>
> > concrete.
>
> >
>
> > Often, people find that, well prepared, lead is not so horrible
>
> to
>
> > do. My own little experiments with a few pounds went pretty

>
> > It's amazing how easily it melts.
>
> >
>
> > They say a little antimony helps later with machining it.
>
> >
>
> > If you wanted to skip the keel entirely and if it they'd work

>
> > your cruising ground, either the recently mentioned Cynrthia J

>
> Jim
>
> > M's Musicbox2 would be similar, straight sided alternatives.
>
> >
>
> > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/bolger/ files/CynthiaJ/
>
> > http://www.duckwork sbbs.com/ plans/jim/ musicbox2/ index.htm
>
> >
>
> > Mark
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:31 PM, dustymick64 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel

>
> the
>
> > > one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete?

>
> around
>
> > > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Bolger rules!!!
>
> > > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
>
> > > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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

>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-

> #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99%

> #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
> #ygrp-text{
> font-family:Georgia;
> }
> #ygrp-text p{
> margin:0 0 1em 0;
> }
> #ygrp-tpmsgs{
> font-family:Arial;
> clear:both;
> }
> #ygrp-vitnav{
> padding-top:10px;
> font-family:Verdana;
> font-size:77%;
> margin:0;
> }
> #ygrp-vitnav a{
> padding:0 1px;
> }
> #ygrp-actbar{
> clear:both;
> margin:25px 0;
> white-space:nowrap;
> color:#666;
> text-align:right;
> }
> #ygrp-actbar .left{
> float:left;
> white-space:nowrap;
> }
> .bld{font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-grft{
> font-family:Verdana;
> font-size:77%;
> padding:15px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-ft{
> font-family:verdana;
> font-size:77%;
> border-top:1px solid #666;
> padding:5px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
> padding-bottom:10px;
> }
>
> #ygrp-vital{
> background-color:#e0ecee;
> margin-bottom:20px;
> padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
> }
> #ygrp-vital #vithd{
> font-size:77%;
> font-family:Verdana;
> font-weight:bold;
> color:#333;
> text-transform:uppercase;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul{
> padding:0;
> margin:2px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li{
> list-style-type:none;
> clear:both;
> border:1px solid #e0ecee;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
> font-weight:bold;
> color:#ff7900;
> float:right;
> width:2em;
> text-align:right;
> padding-right:.5em;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
> font-weight:bold;
> }
> #ygrp-vital a {
> text-decoration:none;
> }
>
> #ygrp-vital a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;
> }
>
> #ygrp-sponsor #hd{
> color:#999;
> font-size:77%;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov{
> padding:6px 13px;
> background-color:#e0ecee;
> margin-bottom:20px;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
> padding:0 0 0 8px;
> margin:0;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
> list-style-type:square;
> padding:6px 0;
> font-size:77%;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
> text-decoration:none;
> font-size:130%;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor #nc {
> background-color:#eee;
> margin-bottom:20px;
> padding:0 8px;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad{
> padding:8px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
> font-family:Arial;
> font-weight:bold;
> color:#628c2a;
> font-size:100%;
> line-height:122%;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
> text-decoration:none;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;
> }
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
> margin:0;
> }
> o {font-size:0;}
> .MsoNormal {
> margin:0 0 0 0;
> }
> #ygrp-text tt{
> font-size:120%;
> }
> blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
> .replbq {margin:4;}
> -->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:

>

> The difference in weight will make a difference in the power to

carry

> sail. Check this, but I think lead weighs about 5 times more than

> concrete.

>

> Often, people find that, well prepared, lead is not so horrible

to

> do. My own little experiments with a few pounds went pretty well.

> It's amazing how easily it melts.

>

> They say a little antimony helps later with machining it.

>

> If you wanted to skip the keel entirely and if it they'd work for

> your cruising ground, either the recently mentioned Cynrthia J or

Jim

> M's Musicbox2 would be similar, straight sided alternatives.

>

> http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/bolger/ files/CynthiaJ/

> http://www.duckwork sbbs.com/ plans/jim/ musicbox2/ index.htm

>

> Mark

>

>

> On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:31 PM, dustymick64 wrote:

>

> > Was wondering how difficult it would be to change the keel from

the

> > one designed for it to a box type filled with concrete? Messing

around

> > with the lead is a bit more than I want to fool with.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Bolger rules!!!

> > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!

> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]