[alberg30] alberg 25 ???

[RABBIT649 at aol.com]

From: RABBIT649 at aol.com

Dear Tom,
    My understanding is that all Pearsons were done with lead. The 35, having 
been built by Pearson, would therefore be lead. This is a deduction, not a 
fact, but one I've seen corroborated in other descriptions of the 35.
    I personally know of no problems with the iron. Theoreticians, such as 
myself, can be needless alarmists. Although iron oxide expands to many times 
the volume of iron and could theoretically explolde out of its encapsulation 
and although the Alberg ballast was bedded in about a half inch layer of a  
porous cementicious material which looks like Thoroseal or watertight cement 
(a fact I verified on Ashwagh when the 18" piece of 2 x 4 at the rear of the 
ballast crumbled and had to be removed and resealed), I know of no case where 
this has actually happened. 
I would love to hear more input on this issue, experiential, anecdotal or 
theoretical.

In a message dated 8/17/99 8:48:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tomsu at uky.campuscw.net writes:

> From: Tom Sutherland <tomsu at uky.campuscw.net>
>  
>  Paul,
>  
>  I have deduced from something you wrote that  the ballast in the Alberg 
35's 
> was
>  lead. Is this correct ?
>  Also, can anyone shed a bit of light on the idea by some that the cast iron
>  ballast is something to be avoided. It has come up on other sailing lists 
to
>  which I subscribe and I felt unqualified to address it. Can any of the old-
> timers
>  ( in experience ) relate any particular problems with the A30 cast iron 
> ballasts
>  ?
>  
>  Tom S
>  A30  #412

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

How do you enter ONElist’s WEEKLY DRAWING for $100?
By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY program.  For details, go to
http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html

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

 934926795.0