• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About stepcut

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, IL
  • Interests
    sailing, boat building

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, I am probably going to get the Groco ARG 750 strainer and the Trac flushcap -- unless there is some reason to believe the Groco ARG 750 is a bad idea. For the next 6 months or so I will be in salt water -- so I will need to flush now and then since I have only raw water cooling (no heat exchanger). But after that, I will be back in the freshwater for a long time, and so I will just need to use the system to winterize the engine once a year. I like the simplicity of the raw water strainer solution -- and I'd like to have a nicer raw water strainer anyway. Once I am back in freshwater, I'll basically be using this system once a year -- so having a simple system means fewer points of failure that could sink my boat. I still have two minor issues to deal with: (1) My raw water intake seacock and other components are 3/4". The NPT to hose adapters like this one: only have 1.38" long barbs -- but a high quality hose clamp seems to be around 3/4" of inch wide. So I can't really fit two hose clamps on the barb. Does someone make an adapter with a longer hose barb? (2) Does anyone make t-bolt style hose clamps for hoses with a 3/4" ID? The smallest I have seen seems to be for 1" ID hoses, such as these, If not, then I guess something like this would be my next best alternative? Unlike cheap worm gear clamps, these have a solid band on the inside to protect the hose. Though that doesn't fix the fundamental weakness that the holes for the worm drive weaken the band. Thanks!
  2. I like the idea of the special cap for the strainer because it does not add any new fittings, hoses, or other points of failure when not in use. Though, my current strainer is not really usable in that way -- see the attached photo. But, I could always replace the strainer. My current strainer is a bit tedious to clean -- so it could be win-win.
  3. Sounds very similar to the attached photo.
  4. I'd like to make it easier to flush my cooling system with fresh water or fill it with anti-freeze to winterize it. I've tried simply pulling the raw water intake hose off the barb and it was not a satisfying solution. I am trying to figure out a sensible method for doing this. One option would be to get this Groco SBV Safety Seacock: It does exactly what I need -- but it is also $500. If I needed a new seacock anyway, it would be an easier decision -- but my current seacock is just fine. Another option is this safety seacock converter, As shown in the following PDF, it can be used with my existing seacock for fresh water flushing, winterizing, routine bilge pumping or emergency bilge pumping: Another option is to just get a t-fitting, an extra ball valve, and some extra hose and barbs and create a more permanent setup like this: As discussed in the thread linked at the end of this message -- I am not really counting on my Atomic 4 to be much of a bilge pump. But the method outlined in the bilge bypass article does look like it would be quick and easy to use when pumping fresh water or antifreeze out of a bucket -- just turn a couple ball valves and you are good to go. But it also seems to have more points of failure. On the other hand, the SCC service manual says you need to grease the quick release once per month. The diagrams shown for the groco adapters have the freshwater line plumbed directly into the fitting. However, I've heard it suggested that it might be a bad idea to do that because it could lead to accidentally flooding the engine. To be honest, I have not actually looked at my raw water intake system to understand how that flooding would occur. I think what happens is that the water lift muffler fills up with water, and if the exhaust can not push the water out fast enough, it backs up the muffler into the engine? My boat does not have a water lift muffler -- it's the red thing in this photo album, Most of the cooling water goes through the top hose, and some amount of it gets diverted to the muffler through the spigot. Water comes out of two holes on the back of the boat. There is also no thermostat -- so water is always flowing. If I am going to pull water and anti freeze from a bucket -- then I do not really need an adapter to convert to a standard water hose -- and so the 'bilge bypass' option seems nice. Additionally, I could put a water strainer on the end and use it as my backup, backup bilge pump. But I have a manual pump and (soon) 2 electric pumps -- so if that is not enough, is the engine water pump actually going to make the difference? In my reading about the Groco safety seacock converter -- people did not think it was a great idea to leave the SBVSA permanently attached to a hose in the bilge because it could vibrate and rotate loose. In the Groco PDF, for routine bilge pumping they show a more rigid installation where the hose can not rotate. With the 'bilge bypass' solution if you accidentally opened the seacock and the ball valve on the bilge hose then you might be filling up your bilge with water and not realize it. With the SSC solution, if you remove the plug with the seacock open -- you are definitely going to notice. While it would be hard to reinsert the plug with the seacock open -- it should be easy to just close the seacock. One solution I will definite *not* use the Perko Complete Flush Pro Kit -- which is overpriced, plastic garbage. So.. I think I favor the safety seacock converter solution -- but I am easily swayed. Anyone have some real world experience? - jeremy
  5. stepcut

    Dislodged my stern tube -- how screwed am I?

    Hard to say -- perhaps nothing useful. In a frictionless world, the higher TPI would provide a greater mechanical advantage. But in a frictionless world, I wouldn't need a mechanical advantage to insert a cutlass bearing or move a stern tube. Once you account for the added friction of having more thread length engaged, things get pretty fuzzy. If there is still a mechanical advantage after you account for added friction, it is probably small -- like 5-15%. Given that I was only trying to move things less than 1/2" even a 'greatly increased number of turns' is not that many turns -- so I did not care about the increased number of rotations required. Of course, I also switched from a 1/2" all-thread to a 3/4" all-thread. For the same torque on the nut, the 3/4" is going to have less clamping force than a 1/2"? So, if there was any advantage to using 3/4" with finer threads instead of 1/2" with coarse threads -- it is that I could create a greater clamping force before things started to deform -- but I would need bigger wrenches to get the job done. If I had used a higher TPI all-thread, but a thinner nut, then I could have increased the mechanical advantage with out increasing the friction (because I could aim to keep the length of engaged thread the same). Of course, that means I would be more like to shear or at least deform the threads because I would be putting a greater load on them instead of spreading it out more. At the time, I wanted to be sure that the all-thread and nuts were going to be up to the job and wouldn't deform. To balance that out, I used bigger wrenches. I guess in the end, it was the bigger wrenches that made the difference, and it was the larger, finer all-thread that gave me the confidence to use them Would coarse thread have worked just as well? Probably. Did I deform the cutlass bearing from too much clamping force? Not that I can tell. But, I started with a fully depreciated boat for a reason -- I am sure to make lots of beginner mistakes.
  6. stepcut

    Dislodged my stern tube -- how screwed am I?

    It is battery operated -- runs on the standard Ryobi 18v battery. I bought the bare tool with out an extra batteries or chargers -- so the 240V issue never comes into play. I already have batteries and a 120v charger for my other tools.
  7. stepcut

    Dislodged my stern tube -- how screwed am I?

    This has now be resolved. Instead of using some crappy 1/2" galvanized, course thread, all thread from home depot, I ordered some high quality 3/4" fine thread, all thread from mcmaster carr. I made a little jig that went on the outside of the boat and I was able to pull the stern tube back into place with any fuss. I then used the same all thread to push the cutlass bearing in the last remaining 1/4". If I had just ordered the $50 worth of all thread, nuts, and washers from McMaster Carr in the first place, I would have saved a lot of time -- but not learned as much The tube did not wiggle at all -- so I do not see how the alignment could have been affected. Once it was back in place, I scraped out the resin, caulk, or whatever it was that was between the stern tube and the hull on the outside and then filled the void with thickened epoxy. I made sure to tape up the cutlass bearing real good so that no epoxy got on or in it. On the inside I used a powerfile to remove whatever was used to bond the stern tube on the inside. My best guess is that it was just a blob of polyester resin -- there was no fiberglass reinforcement. I roughed up the tube by hand with some 80 grit and sanded the nearby fiberglass with the powerfile. I then applied several layers of fiberglass and epoxy on the top half of the tube bonding it to the hull. If you don't have a powerfile, you are missing out! I just use the battery powered one from ryobi. For some reason it is not available in the US, but Amazon UK shipped it to me with free shipping in under 5 days. There is no way I would have attempted to operate a grinder in that confined space, and it would have taken ages to grind the old stuff away by hand. The cordless powerfile was small enough to get in the space, and easy to operate with one hand at arms length. I would rate its scary danger tool factor to be similar to a cordless drill. The tool does not require a lot of power, so going cordless is really nice. I learned about the powerfile from this video:
  8. I am using epoxy because I already have epoxy resin from previous projects I have some experience using epoxy but none using polyester According to resources I have read, epoxy creates a 20% strong bond than polyester when making a repair like this where it will be a mechanical bond, not a chemical one. I can use 406 filler to help make the overhead layup easier For someone experienced with polyester, it might be done in an afternoon. But since I do not have polyester resin or experience using polyester resin, I do not see a compelling reason to choose it over epoxy. I suspect it would actually take me longer to use polyester -- though I would learn a new skill. But I only need to learn so many new things per repair. So I'll save the polyester for another day.
  9. Thanks everyone. Here is what I have learned so far and my updated plan: This is a machined hole, not a puncture, crack, etc. So I am not concerned about damage to the surrounding laminate. The only purpose of this project is to permanently plug up the hole. One option is to just fill up the hole with epoxy. That would probably work but doesn't fill me confidence. Another option is to create a 1/2" thick, 12:1 bevel and then add lots of fiberglass to rebuild the laminate back to the original shape. That option involves a lot of grinding, a lot of fiberglassing, a lot of fairing, and removes a lot of perfectly fine laminate. A more pragmatic approach is to split the difference. Create a 3/16" thick puck that goes in the middle of the hole. Now when creating a 12:1 bevel it only has to go deep enough to get to the puck. Accordingly the diameter of the beveled area can be more like 5" on each side, instead of 12" on a singleside. This is the process described in the Gougeon Brothers pdf from the west systems website. Creating the puck and installing it can be a bit fiddly (I've seen people do it an youtube). So another similar approach is something like what Gouvernail suggests. First fill the hole entirely with epoxy and fiberglass. Perhaps even make the hole hourglass shaped before filling it, so that even if the plug came completely delaminated from the hull, it would leak, but couldn't possibly slip out. By itself, that would probably work. But to be extra sure, grind out 1/8" to 3/16" laminate with a 12:1 taper on the inside and outside, and layup some fiberglass circles going from largest to smallest. Fair the outside, and then paint according to manufacture's instructions. Now it should be strong & leak free, while removing a minimal amount of the existing laminate. The disadvantage of filling the hole entirely instead of making a puck is that you are just adding more epoxy and fiberglass that you are going to immediately grind away. However, given that my hole is only 3/4" in diameter, it is probably easier to add extra material and grind it away, than to try to create and fit a puck. Due to the mess that grinding can make inside the boat, I might only bevel on the outside. In that case, I'd at least want to hand sand (or maybe powerfile) the inside surface down to bare fiberglass and then add a couple layers of fiberglass. The inside of the hole is inside a storage locker, so looks are not important. Since I do not want to stress out about this patch when I am offshore, I am willing to do some extra work now to be 100% confident in the work.
  10. When you say '24 grit disc' what type of disc are you talking about? From what I can tell there are at least three types of discs that are measured in grit. 1) sanding discs like this, 2) and flap discs like this: 3) metal grinding wheels like this, Or a thicker version like this: I feel like the sandpaper type discs are just going to get clogged up real fast. And, I think the flap discs are great at first but wear out too quickly? So what I need is a 24-grit metal grinder wheel? The idea of using a powerfile came from the following video. Seems like it might be promising for doing a 2" bevel on the inside of the boat while keeping dust to a minimum. I do have a shopvac on board. It is certainly not as fast as a grinder -- but with only a 2" radius and desire to keep dust down, it seems worth a shot. Perhaps I'll start by testing it on the outside of the boat a bit before committing to doing a bevel on the inside. Due to the place of the hole near walls, I am not even sure I could use the angle grinder on the inside. So if the powerfile isn't viable, then I don't have much choice except to do single taper. Thanks!
  11. Hello, I removed a very old depth sounder and am now ready to glass over the hole. Due to my hull thickness, it seems like I am going to have to remove quite a bit of material to get the desired 12-to-1 taper. I'm just looking for a quick sanity check to make sure my approach is sound. I have done a little bit of fiberglass work -- mostly on a stitch and glue dinghy. But I would consider this to be my biggest project yet. I've watched the videos and read the West Systems repair manual -- but grinding away 12" of my hull still makes me a bit nervous :) Here are the specs: 1. polyester and fiberglass boat built in 1965 (Tartan 27 Yawl) 2. solid fiberglass bottom 3. hull is 0.44" thick where the depth sounder was removed 4. the hole is 3/4" in diameter To create a 12-to-1 taper I would need to create a taper that is 5.28" around the outside of the hole. So that means the diameter of the beveled circle is going to be 11.31". I'll probably just make it an even 12". Does that sound unusually large? Another option would be to taper from the the inside *and* the outside. On the inside I could maybe create a 2" wide bevel around the hole. So I think that means on the outside I would only need to taper 3.28" around the hole for a total diameter of 7.31". Another option would be to just plug up the hole. Perhaps install a proper mushroom head thru hull with some good sealant and cap it on the inside. That is probably less work, but more likely to leak. I do not think I am going to install anything else there soon and it is well below the waterline. So my inclination is to fiberglass over the hole with fiberglass and epoxy. I am also inclined to only bevel from the outside of the hull because it has the following advantages: 1. less dust inside the boat (where I currently live) 2. creates a lot of surface area for the first layer of fiberglass to bond to 3. seem less tricky to get right I have both a grinder and a powerfile as well as a tyvek suit and other PPE. For the grinder and the powerfile I have discs/sandpaper all the way down to 40 grit or so. The weather where I am now is generally 90-95°F. I currently only have 205 Fast Hardener on hand. Should I get the 206 Slow Hardener or go all the way up to the 209 Extra Slow Hardener? For the fiberglass I am planning to use 1708 stiched mat. That is the stuff which is woven so that it does not have the styrene-soluble binder which can interfere with epoxy. I've heard that the west systems epoxy can work ok with chopped strand mat even though it does not dissolve the binder. But since I do not have any CSM, I might as well just buy the stitched stuff and not worry about it? One concern that I have is getting the wetted fiberglass to stick to the bottom of the boat. I feel like a square foot of wetted fiberglass is going to be pretty heavy and want to fall off.. Should I wet out the fiberglass and also apply epoxy to the bottom of the hull and then wait for things to get a bit tacky? Or should I use a thickener like 406 Collodidal Silica? Or perhaps a different approach? I'd like to do wet-on-wet -- but as I build up more layers -- it's going to add weight. How do I know when the previous layer is dry enough that it won't delaminate? These are some of the questions that my previous experience doesn't help me answer. My bottom paint is Interlux Micro Extra. Based on the instructions here, It sounds like I do not need to use primer? Just some sanding, cleaning, and 2 coats? Thanks! - jeremy
  12. There is a right way to do things and a fast way to do things. And the fast way takes twice and long and costs three times as much. I was attempting to install a new cutless bearing with a homemade all-thread jig. But I was using some crappy 1/2"-10 allthread and didn't have a long enough wrench. After getting the cutless in most of the way, I ran out of leverage. Instead of ordering a bigger wrench or some 3/4"-16 allthread, I decided to crank it down as best I could, and then hit it with a hammer. This allowed me to get another 1/2 turn on the nut. The idea is that since the washers were pulling pretty hard on the cutlass, I wouldn't have to hit it that hard with the hammer. Alas, reality had different ideas. Somehow I managed to dislodge the stern tube. It is still in there very tightly. I cannot wiggle it by hand and attempting to hammer it back in position from the other side is not easy either. (But, I assume, possibly). I am now trying to determine what is required to safely repair this. My two concerns are (1) water leaking in around the outside of the stern tube (2) the stern tube coming dislodged later when I am motoring. I have uploaded photos here: Part of my difficulty with doing the repair is that I do not understand how the stern tube was installed in the first place. The boat is a 1965 Tartan 27 Yawl. If you look at the photo with the arrows, the red arrow points to the bronze stern tube. The green arrow points to some mystery layer that is between the bronze stern tube and the deadwood. The stern tube used to be flush with the hull and the mystery layer, but you can see in the yellow circle that it is now inset a 1/4" or so. Looking at the photo of the inside of the boat, you can see that the tube used to be fiberglassed in place on the inside -- but that has broken free. The stern tube is 13" long and does not have any flanges or set screws that I am aware of. One thing I can not figure out is what substance is surrounding the stern tube. I was able to scrape it with a small pocket knife and create small shavings. The freshly exposed material is a light gray color and has a hint of sparkle to it when the sun hits it just right. It felt like scraping a hard PVC pipe or something. You can see a bit of it exposed in the 5th photo at around the 8 o'clock mark. One hypothesis I have is that when the boat was built, they made an oversized hole in the deadwood, aligned the stern tube in the hole using some sort of spacers, and then filled it up with the mysterious substance. The rest of the boat is polyester resin -- so maybe some sort of thickened polyester resin? Or perhaps the hole in the deadwood is only enlarged at the end and is filled with some sort of sealant? I am a bit surprised that I was able to move the stern tube at all. If it is was completely encased in polyester resin along 8"+ inches of length, I imagine I would have to hit it pretty hard to break it free? One wishful thought is that if I was able to move it -- then it was probably due for repair anyway. Another thought is that perhaps the substance surrounding the bronze stern tube was designed to create a very tight fit, but wasn't bonded to the tube. That way it would be possible to replace the tube later without having to grind it out ? Its not clear that the tube is any easier to move now than it was before I moved it. If it was held in place primarily by a bond that I broke, then it might move more easily now. But it is still stuck in there quite tightly. If the stern tube was never bonded to the deadwood, then perhaps hammering it back into place and redoing the glass on the inside would be sufficient to restore it to its former glory? Though, I don't like the idea of water creeping up the outside of the stern tube and into the bilge. 8+ inches seems like a long way to creep given how tight the fit is -- and if I do a good job with the glasswork on the inside, that would keep the water from getting into the bilge. But I don't like the idea of preventing a potential leak from the inside out. Especially, because access to the stern tube is not great, and I think it would be difficult to do watertight glass work in the space on the inside. A slightly more complicated fix would be to carve out the 1/4" of newly exposed substance that surrounds the stern tube and then hammer the stern tube back into place. This would leave a gap around the stern tube that I could then fill in with something -- Sikaflex 291, 3M 5200, or perhaps thickened epoxy. That should prevent the water from creeping up the outside of the stern tube. I would still glass the tube on the inside to provide extra bonding and additional protection against leakage. But is that sufficient? The stern tube will experience some rotation force and vibrations from the prop shaft. But the prop shaft only indirectly contacts the stern tube via the stuffing box and cutless bearing -- which are both supposed to be low friction? I think the rubber on the stuff box hose would give way before it could rotate the stern tube. My fear is that the stern tube was in fact bonded in place along its entire length and that in order to get a safe repair I need to grind it out, epoxy it (or a new one) in place, and fiberglass over the whole mess. But I've also read that sometimes boat builders would coat the stern tube in wax or something before laying up the fiberglass so that it would be possible to replace the stern tube without having to grind it out. Though, perhaps that is only done for stern tubes that have a flange to hold them into place. If the stern tube moved back and forth freely, I could try to coat it with epoxy and slide it in -- but that is not going to happen. It will take a fair amount of effort to simply move it back into place, and I think the fit is so tight that it would just scrape off any epoxy. Instead of only scraping out the last 1/4" of the mystery layer, I could try to drive the stern tube in deeper and expose, say 1" of the mystery layer. Then scrape that off, move the stern tube back in place, and fill with thickened epoxy. That would be 4 times better than only patching the last 1/4" I guess. If it needs to be bonded along its entire length, I could try to drive the old stern tube out entirely, remove the surrounding material, and then epoxy in a new one in place. Perhaps a G-10 tube instead of bronze. That sounds better than grinding out the old one. In either case, if I have to epoxy the entire length of the stern tube -- it is going to be a time consuming project. I'll do it if it is the right thing to do, but I don't want to do it if it is total overkill. Aside from time and money, installing a new stern tube has additional risks such as screwing up the alignment. From what I can tell, my stern tube is in good shape overall. If it needed to be replaced anyway, now would be a good time to do it. But I don't think that is necessary. The fix that is the least amount of work would be to leave the stern tube where it is and just put some sealant in the groove around the cutlass and some sealant on the end inside the boat as well. Though, that does not fill me with confidence. In summary, I want to fix this the right way -- but I don't know which way is the right way. Any thoughts? - jeremy p.s. As a side note, I am not sure why it was so hard to press the new cutlass into place. There are no set screws for this cutlass, so perhaps it is an extra tight fit. I also, perhaps did not do a good enough job wet sanding the inside of the stern tube. Also, I was only able to chill the new cutlass using ice, and it was 95°F outside -- so perhaps if I had access to more aggressive cooling and a cooler day, it would have gone it better. Or maybe I just have just used a larger diameter allthread and a bigger wrench. If I had just used some 3/4"-16 allthread and my 1-1/8" wrenches, I am sure it would have gone in fine. Regrets! p.p.s. I am ordering some larger diameter allthread since I do need to get the cutlass in the rest of the way. Before trying to hammer the stern tube back in place, I may try to use the allthread to pull it back into place. On the outside I would use a block of wood on the stern to help distribute the load. p.p.p.s. Or maybe I should just glass over the hole, toss the engine, and get a big sculling oar?