[Public-List] Public-List Digest, Vol 3194, Issue 2
Stephen Gwyn via Public-List
public-list at lists.alberg30.org
Sun Feb 7 09:39:15 PST 2016
Hi,
The construction of the knees is not a truss. It's a skinned construction,
like the deck. Yes, there does have to be a good connection between the two
skins and the filler and the filler has to be fairly sound, but the filler
could be balsa, instead of what it is, which high quality teak plywood. But
ultimately, the strength lies in the skins, much like an I beam.
Rather than attaching them to the deck, which flexes, the way to make the
knees stronger would be to extend them downwards until they hit the inward
curve of the hull. This is what was done on the C&C boats being at made
just down the road from Whitby at the same time. C&C boats aren't as pretty
as Albergs, but they are very well engineered and better built.
Also, as was pointed out, I don't think the bolts do much in shear. You
would have to drill the holes in the chainplates and the knees exactly
aligned, otherwise one bolt will taking all load. Rather, my understanding
is that the bolts are there to squeeze the plate to the knee or bulkhead
and the plate is held by friction, due to normal forces exerted by the
bolts. I've read of chainplates being epoxied to the bulkheads/knees, not
because the epoxy sticks particularly well to the stainless steel (it
doesn't) but because it ensures a perfectly matched interface between the
plate and the bulkhead, increasing the friction. On my boat at least, there
are thin spacers between the bulkhead and the chainplates for the uppers,
so the plate can get past the lip of the liner at the top of the bulkhead.
This spacer has no strength at all and isn't bonded to the bulkhead. If the
bolts were taking a significant tangential load, they would now be being
bent upwards, not just sheared because there is effectively a gap between
the bulkhead and the plate. The bolts aren't bent, which suggests to me
that there isn't much of a tangential load.
SG
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 8:29 AM, via Public-List <
public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
> Send Public-List mailing list submissions to
> public-list at lists.alberg30.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> public-list-request at lists.alberg30.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> public-list-owner at lists.alberg30.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Public-List digest..."
>
>
> Please do NOT include the entire digest in your reply!
> ======================================================
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Structural strength of knees (Anders Bro via Public-List)
> 2. Re: seeking SavannahRose #477 owner (Andy via Public-List)
> 3. Re: Structural strength of knees
> (Michael Connolly via Public-List)
> 4. Re: Structural strength of knees (Gordon Laco via Public-List)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 09:18:36 -0500
> From: Anders Bro via Public-List <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> Subject: [Public-List] Structural strength of knees
> Message-ID: <56B7523C.4000106 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> I have had a lot of edukatin as I have read all the contributions about
> the knee structure/bolts/tabbing. And although I am absolutely no
> authority in these matters, there are a few points I would like to
> present for contemplation? First of all, my background is as an engineer
> (rock engineering and rock testing) and we in the rock engineering field
> are very concerned with shear strength, as it is what keeps those big
> blocks of rock in place so as to prevent land slides, dam abutment
> failures and the like... but I digress.
>
> My first concern is that the term modulus has been brought up, and the
> various values of the materials involved (steel, epoxy, wood). The
> modulus is generally associated with the elastic properties of
> materials, and as such typically involves very small (elastic ie
> recoverable) strains. I expect that we are really dealing not with
> elastic properties but rather yield. As such, the strength of the
> materials is was governs the failure of the structure, not the
> small-strain elasticity. So it might be more appropriate to evaluate the
> relative strength of the materials and not the moduli.
>
> Then there is one point that might be relevant - the plastic (yield
> deformations) that result in the sharing of the loads. If say the wood
> is replaced by a very strong material, then the shear strength on an
> individual bolt may be exceeded before the stress on the next bolt
> begins to build. So it might be better to have a weaker (although not
> weak) foundation rather than a super strong one?
>
> This concept of sharing the shear load among the bolts may also be
> misplaced. In the field of rock engineering, we use rock bolts to
> stabilize large rock masses. However these bolts are never used in shear
> but in tension. The idea is that the tension applies a normal component
> of stress to the interface and thereby strengthens the shear interface
> (by means of the coefficient of friction of the interface). So in our
> case of the chain-plate interacting with the knees, if the normal force
> applied by the bolts becomes small (due to rot and compressibility of
> the underlying wood) then there is very little shear resistance that
> develops and the bolts (rather than the interface) are placed in shear -
> their weakest mode of failure. Again referring back to the rock
> engineering field, we actually do not orient the bolts normal to the
> shear plane, but rather at an angle so that if a small shear
> displacement does develop, then the bolt tensile load increases, thereby
> increasing the normal load and thus the shear strength of the interface.
> If the bolts are oriented perpendicular to the place, no normal load
> increase can develop due to a shear displacement. In light of this
> experience, one possibility would be to angle the chain-plate bolts
> downward?
>
> One idea has been proposed to really beef up this junction. That is
> certainly one approach, but I expect that the weak link in most of our
> boats is (obviously) rot, and the weak bond between the plywood and the
> tabbing. (I had a Southern Cross 28 in which the wood was totally rotted
> underneath the tabbing, but not in the exposed portion of the bulkhead.
> I excavated the rotten plywood back to good, and then laid in numerous
> layers of fiberglass and then extended the tabbing about about 6".) I
> expect that if the bond and the plywood is in good shape, there the
> structure is probably adequate (?). I personally like the idea of going
> with the 5/16" bolts, but expect the problem is low stress on the 1/4"
> bolts that leads to the bolt shear. The problem I can see is that as the
> wood shrinks and expands, the bolt stress will become low and so one may
> need to rely on the shear strength of the steel rather than the shear
> strength of the knee/chainplate interface.
>
> My 2 cents...
>
> Anders
>
>
> On 02/07/2016 08:14 AM, Don Campbell via Public-List wrote:
> > Stephen:
> > Don't rely on your impression when it comes to engineering
> > strength. You might want to read some of the Gougeon's book on boat
> > construction for an explanation in more lay terms than engineering
> > texts, but the strength is in the truss system which relies on the
> > core being structurally sound and fully bonded to the laminates on the
> > three sides for the knees. Polyester lay-ups are not strong on their
> > own, and epoxy lay-ups are not really much better on their own.
> > Don
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Gwyn via Public-List
> > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 12:32 AM
> > To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> > Subject: Re: [Public-List] Public-List Digest, Vol 3193, Issue 2
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just pulled, cleaned and rebedded half my shroud chainplates (the three
> > on the starboard side). It took about 5 hours. Everything was very
> > wet. But
> > all the metal was all rust-free and the wood was unstained and quite hard
> > when I poked it with a knife. The chain plate for the upper shroud was
> > quite damp, but as far as I can make out, it was damp with salt water
> > from
> > the last time I had the rail underwater. Lots of shiny crystals. Probably
> > too salty for rot. I used 3M4000 (polyether). Much better handling and
> > much faster cure time than Boatlife polysulfide. We'll see how long it
> > lasts. I gave the port chainplates a hard look and they appear much the
> > same.
> >
> > My impression of the fibreglass/wood knees for the lower shrouds is that
> > the wood is just there as a spacer. The strength is all in the
> > fibreglass.
> >
> > SG
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 10:58:12 -0500
> From: Andy via Public-List <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To: Chip Dance <chipdance01 at gmail.com>, Alberg 30 Public List -- open
> to all <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> Subject: Re: [Public-List] seeking SavannahRose #477 owner
> Message-ID: <CB4E8EFF-5E0D-4B52-9A3F-9EBCA05FD5CE at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello Chip,
>
> Let me know what I can do for you.
>
> Andy Shaw~
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Chip Dance via Public-List <
> public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was browsing the Alberg30.org website and came across a picture of
> > SavannahRose interior showing the added 3 burner stove and oven. I'd like
> > to do something similar to #456 and I would love to get in touch with Mr.
> > Shaw (or current owner) to discuss the stove.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chip
> > #456
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Michael Connolly via Public-List
> <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To: Anders Bro <abro.gtu at gmail.com>, Alberg 30 Public List -- open to
> all <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> Subject: Re: [Public-List] Structural strength of knees
> Message-ID:
> <1901368149.17915665.1454861825483.JavaMail.zimbra at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Anders,
> Nice analysis.? We are all learning that this major structural element?on
> our boats is a combination of several components. These components, if
> sound, work in harmony with each other to keep our rigs up.? A weak link
> can be caused by deterioration of any single component;??and, as you have
> currently pointed out, ...........................strengthening any one of
> these components can cause a shift in what will become the new weak link.
> Interesting, thanks for your thoughts.
> ?
> I?endeavor to be all business when it comes to maintenance and
> seaworthiness of our boats.? When it comes to the actual sailing part I
> tend to be, for better or worse a "seat-of-the-pants" sailor.? What I find
> delightful about fellow owners on this list is the divergent perspectives
> of how to solve problems combined with?the common Love for the boat.
> Michael #133
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Anders Bro via Public-List" <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 9:18:36 AM
> Subject: [Public-List] Structural strength of knees
>
> I have had a lot of edukatin as I have read all the contributions about
> the knee structure/bolts/tabbing. And although I am absolutely no
> authority in these matters, there are a few points I would like to
> present for contemplation? First of all, my background is as an engineer
> (rock engineering and rock testing) and we in the rock engineering field
> are very concerned with shear strength, as it is what keeps those big
> blocks of rock in place so as to prevent land slides, dam abutment
> failures and the like... but I digress.
>
> My first concern is that the term modulus has been brought up, and the
> various values of the materials involved (steel, epoxy, wood). The
> modulus is generally associated with the elastic properties of
> materials, and as such typically involves very small (elastic ie
> recoverable) strains. I expect that we are really dealing not with
> elastic properties but rather yield. As such, the strength of the
> materials is was governs the failure of the structure, not the
> small-strain elasticity. So it might be more appropriate to evaluate the
> relative strength of the materials and not the moduli.
>
> Then there is one point that might be relevant - the plastic (yield
> deformations) that result in the sharing of the loads. If say the wood
> is replaced by a very strong material, then the shear strength on an
> individual bolt may be exceeded before the stress on the next bolt
> begins to build. So it might be better to have a weaker (although not
> weak) foundation rather than a super strong one?
>
> This concept of sharing the shear load among the bolts may also be
> misplaced. In the field of rock engineering, we use rock bolts to
> stabilize large rock masses. However these bolts are never used in shear
> but in tension. The idea is that the tension applies a normal component
> of stress to the interface and thereby strengthens the shear interface
> (by means of the coefficient of friction of the interface). So in our
> case of the chain-plate interacting with the knees, if the normal force
> applied by the bolts becomes small (due to rot and compressibility of
> the underlying wood) then there is very little shear resistance that
> develops and the bolts (rather than the interface) are placed in shear -
> their weakest mode of failure. Again referring back to the rock
> engineering field, we actually do not orient the bolts normal to the
> shear plane, but rather at an angle so that if a small shear
> displacement does develop, then the bolt tensile load increases, thereby
> increasing the normal load and thus the shear strength of the interface.
> If the bolts are oriented perpendicular to the place, no normal load
> increase can develop due to a shear displacement. In light of this
> experience, one possibility would be to angle the chain-plate bolts
> downward?
>
> One idea has been proposed to really beef up this junction. That is
> certainly one approach, but I expect that the weak link in most of our
> boats is (obviously) rot, and the weak bond between the plywood and the
> tabbing. (I had a Southern Cross 28 in which the wood was totally rotted
> underneath the tabbing, but not in the exposed portion of the bulkhead.
> I excavated the rotten plywood back to good, and then laid in numerous
> layers of fiberglass and then extended the tabbing about about 6".) I
> expect that if the bond and the plywood is in good shape, there the
> structure is probably adequate (?). I personally like the idea of going
> with the 5/16" bolts, but expect the problem is low stress on the 1/4"
> bolts that leads to the bolt shear. The problem I can see is that as the
> wood shrinks and expands, the bolt stress will become low and so one may
> need to rely on the shear strength of the steel rather than the shear
> strength of the knee/chainplate interface.
>
> My 2 cents...
>
> Anders
>
>
> On 02/07/2016 08:14 AM, Don Campbell via Public-List wrote:
> > Stephen:
> > ? ?Don't rely on your impression when it comes to engineering
> > strength. You might want to read some of the Gougeon's book on boat
> > construction for an explanation in more lay terms than engineering
> > texts, but the strength is in the truss system which relies on the
> > core being structurally sound and fully bonded to the laminates on the
> > three sides for the knees. Polyester lay-ups are not strong on their
> > own, and epoxy lay-ups are not really much better on their own.
> > Don
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Gwyn via Public-List
> > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 12:32 AM
> > To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> > Subject: Re: [Public-List] Public-List Digest, Vol 3193, Issue 2
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just pulled, cleaned and rebedded half my shroud chainplates (the three
> > on the starboard side). It took about 5 hours. Everything was very
> > wet. But
> > all the metal was all rust-free and the wood was unstained and quite hard
> > when I poked it with a knife. The chain plate for the upper shroud was
> > quite damp, but as far as I can make out, it was damp with salt water
> > from
> > the last time I had the rail underwater. Lots of shiny crystals. Probably
> > too salty for rot. ?I used 3M4000 (polyether). Much better handling and
> > much faster cure time than Boatlife polysulfide. We'll see how long it
> > lasts. ?I gave the port chainplates a hard look and they appear much the
> > same.
> >
> > My impression of the fibreglass/wood knees for the lower shrouds is that
> > the wood is just there as a spacer. The strength is all in the
> > fibreglass.
> >
> > SG
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:29:31 -0500
> From: Gordon Laco via Public-List <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To: Michael Connolly <crufone at comcast.net>, Alberg 30 Public List --
> open to all <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> Subject: Re: [Public-List] Structural strength of knees
> Message-ID: <D2DCDB1B.27D2A%mainstay at csolve.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> Right on Michael - thanks from me too, Anders.
>
> I learn a lot here and am grateful for it. It's occurred to me in the past
> that if there's any loss of integrity in the structure our rather short
> chain plates are bolted to, there is a great risk of a single bolt taking
> all the load if the others work their way through the material. I read
> once that in machine threads only the top few turns take the load, and that
> made me think about how chainplate bolts share the load down through the
> ranks... I guess as near perfect a fit for each bolt in it's drilled hold,
> and strong hard material to be bolted to are critical.
>
> I look at SURPRISE's chain plates and their structure and whistle to myself
> sometimes. I think I've written before that my wooden Folkboat's chain
> plates are more than two feet long and are bolted through special
> inter-ribs
> that are longer, thereby transferring the rigging loads to a large area of
> the boat's skin and skeletal structure. I think one could pick up that
> three ton boat by it's chainplates, and reckon that's the way it should
> be...
>
> SURPRISE's shroud chainplates are just like in the apres 400 series boat
> pictures being shared in this thread. I recaulk their deck penetrations
> regularly to defend against water damage below... And watch the caulk
> material fearfully for any sign that the plates have moved up... They
> never
> have even after the most extreme episodes in heavy air. I think I'm going
> to reinforce them anyway.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Gord #426 Surprise
>
>
> On 2016-02-07, 11:17 AM, "Michael Connolly via Public-List"
> <public-list at lists.alberg30.org> wrote:
>
> > Anders,
> Nice analysis.? We are all learning that this major structural
> > element?on our boats is a combination of several components. These
> components,
> > if sound, work in harmony with each other to keep our rigs up.? A weak
> link
> > can be caused by deterioration of any single component;??and, as you have
> > currently pointed out, ...........................strengthening any one
> of
> > these components can cause a shift in what will become the new weak link.
> > Interesting, thanks for your thoughts.
> ?
> I?endeavor to be all business when
> > it comes to maintenance and seaworthiness of our boats.? When it comes
> to the
> > actual sailing part I tend to be, for better or worse a
> "seat-of-the-pants"
> > sailor.? What I find delightful about fellow owners on this list is the
> > divergent perspectives of how to solve problems combined with?the common
> Love
> > for the boat.
> Michael #133
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Anders Bro
> > via Public-List" <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
> To:
> > public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 9:18:36 AM
> >
> Subject: [Public-List] Structural strength of knees
>
> I have had a lot of
> > edukatin as I have read all the contributions about
> the knee
> > structure/bolts/tabbing. And although I am absolutely no
> authority in these
> > matters, there are a few points I would like to
> present for contemplation?
> > First of all, my background is as an engineer
> (rock engineering and rock
> > testing) and we in the rock engineering field
> are very concerned with shear
> > strength, as it is what keeps those big
> blocks of rock in place so as to
> > prevent land slides, dam abutment
> failures and the like... but I digress.
> >
>
> My first concern is that the term modulus has been brought up, and the
> >
> various values of the materials involved (steel, epoxy, wood). The
> modulus
> > is generally associated with the elastic properties of
> materials, and as such
> > typically involves very small (elastic ie
> recoverable) strains. I expect that
> > we are really dealing not with
> elastic properties but rather yield. As such,
> > the strength of the
> materials is was governs the failure of the structure,
> > not the
> small-strain elasticity. So it might be more appropriate to evaluate
> > the
> relative strength of the materials and not the moduli.
>
> Then there is
> > one point that might be relevant - the plastic (yield
> deformations) that
> > result in the sharing of the loads. If say the wood
> is replaced by a very
> > strong material, then the shear strength on an
> individual bolt may be
> > exceeded before the stress on the next bolt
> begins to build. So it might be
> > better to have a weaker (although not
> weak) foundation rather than a super
> > strong one?
>
> This concept of sharing the shear load among the bolts may also
> > be
> misplaced. In the field of rock engineering, we use rock bolts to
> >
> stabilize large rock masses. However these bolts are never used in shear
> but
> > in tension. The idea is that the tension applies a normal component
> of stress
> > to the interface and thereby strengthens the shear interface
> (by means of the
> > coefficient of friction of the interface). So in our
> case of the chain-plate
> > interacting with the knees, if the normal force
> applied by the bolts becomes
> > small (due to rot and compressibility of
> the underlying wood) then there is
> > very little shear resistance that
> develops and the bolts (rather than the
> > interface) are placed in shear -
> their weakest mode of failure. Again
> > referring back to the rock
> engineering field, we actually do not orient the
> > bolts normal to the
> shear plane, but rather at an angle so that if a small
> > shear
> displacement does develop, then the bolt tensile load increases,
> > thereby
> increasing the normal load and thus the shear strength of the
> > interface.
> If the bolts are oriented perpendicular to the place, no normal
> > load
> increase can develop due to a shear displacement. In light of this
> >
> experience, one possibility would be to angle the chain-plate bolts
> >
> downward?
>
> One idea has been proposed to really beef up this junction. That
> > is
> certainly one approach, but I expect that the weak link in most of our
> >
> boats is (obviously) rot, and the weak bond between the plywood and the
> >
> tabbing. (I had a Southern Cross 28 in which the wood was totally rotted
> >
> underneath the tabbing, but not in the exposed portion of the bulkhead.
> I
> > excavated the rotten plywood back to good, and then laid in numerous
> layers
> > of fiberglass and then extended the tabbing about about 6".) I
> expect that if
> > the bond and the plywood is in good shape, there the
> structure is probably
> > adequate (?). I personally like the idea of going
> with the 5/16" bolts, but
> > expect the problem is low stress on the 1/4"
> bolts that leads to the bolt
> > shear. The problem I can see is that as the
> wood shrinks and expands, the
> > bolt stress will become low and so one may
> need to rely on the shear strength
> > of the steel rather than the shear
> strength of the knee/chainplate interface.
> >
>
> My 2 cents...
>
> Anders
>
>
> On 02/07/2016 08:14 AM, Don Campbell via
> > Public-List wrote:
> > Stephen:
> > ? ?Don't rely on your impression when it
> > comes to engineering
> > strength. You might want to read some of the Gougeon's
> > book on boat
> > construction for an explanation in more lay terms than
> > engineering
> > texts, but the strength is in the truss system which relies on
> > the
> > core being structurally sound and fully bonded to the laminates on the
> >
> > three sides for the knees. Polyester lay-ups are not strong on their
> >
> > own, and epoxy lay-ups are not really much better on their own.
> > Don
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Gwyn via Public-List
> > Sent: Sunday,
> > February 07, 2016 12:32 AM
> > To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org
> > Subject:
> > Re: [Public-List] Public-List Digest, Vol 3193, Issue 2
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just
> > pulled, cleaned and rebedded half my shroud chainplates (the three
> > on the
> > starboard side). It took about 5 hours. Everything was very
> > wet. But
> > all
> > the metal was all rust-free and the wood was unstained and quite hard
> > when
> > I poked it with a knife. The chain plate for the upper shroud was
> > quite
> > damp, but as far as I can make out, it was damp with salt water
> > from
> > the
> > last time I had the rail underwater. Lots of shiny crystals. Probably
> > too
> > salty for rot. ?I used 3M4000 (polyether). Much better handling and
> > much
> > faster cure time than Boatlife polysulfide. We'll see how long it
> > lasts. ?I
> > gave the port chainplates a hard look and they appear much the
> > same.
> >
> >
> > My impression of the fibreglass/wood knees for the lower shrouds is that
> >
> > the wood is just there as a spacer. The strength is all in the
> > fibreglass.
> >
> >
> > SG
> > _______________________________________________
> > These
> > businesses support your Association:
> >
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> >
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> >
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support
> > your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> >
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> >
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support
> > your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please
> > support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List
> > mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> >
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support
> > your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please
> > support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List
> > mailing
> > list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/pub
> > lic-list-alberg30.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Public-List Digest, Vol 3194, Issue 2
> ********************************************
>
More information about the Public-List
mailing list