Ariel lifeline

We have at times touched on the subject of how long the polyester that an A/C is made with will last. I'm only curious and not a chemist or engineer - and I've never come across testing done for strength on an actual old frp boat.

It appears that these fairly early boats are built with the best polyester for boats that ever came down the pike. Talking about polyester - that's befor vinylester was formulated or epoxy was used for production.

We have to assume the resin used was an isophthalic (vs orthopthalic) because our hulls do not produce blisters. Our gelcoat and the laminate seem to be very hard and dense. After four decades of UV exposure the topsides are still in pretty good shape. (Gelcoat is the same polyester with pigment and fillers and a thixotrope to keep it from sagging when they spray it into the mold.) And after four decades of sitting in the water the same can be said about the hull. Pretty good shape.
Here is an interesting and easy to read 3 page paper on labratory testing by a tech (Bob Trull?) from Amoco.
Amoco is a supplier of the chemicals used to make polyester. The paper reads like a published article but there is no provenance attached to it. And it is lab testing which imco can not be designed to imitate natural longevity.

To paraphrase a scary bit: When water molecules enter ortho-resin it will start reacting with the (hardened) resin and start dissolving the plastic THERE IS NO CURE for boats built with this resin (and many frp boats still are today!) It's "self-generating." That's a word for cancer. It's the 'sugar cube effect.'
Now, while iso-resins are many times (How much more is many?) more effective at not dissolving with water molecule intrusion into the substrate, this paper does imply that this dissolving thing could be happening as we speak in our boats!:eek: Your reaction, please.

[DOC] This is what recreational boat is meant to be >sic - google<
http://www.prz.rzeszow.pl/chemia/cm/...ng%20truth.doc

I'm not too worried; by their nature all boats have a tradition of repair and renewal.

We may be moving in to a philosophical argument here. At some point in the distant future, the some or all of our boats may be ground out and repaired to the point where <50% of a boat's hull was actually fabricated by Pearson. Does that make it less of an Ariel or Commander if the boat still conforms to Alberg's lines?

I assume the wooden boat industry provides a model here. I'd be surprised if for example the Charles W. Morgan or the USS Constitution still retain any of their original components beyond the design and as-built evolution of that design over their many centuries existence. Yet we still refer to each as being the actual Whaler or Frigate as built in 1841 and 1797 respectively. It may be that the persistence of the assemblage of the parts is the key. While each is in some way a replica of their configuration in 1850 or 1812, they both claim the best thread of continuous existence for those designs.

By way of an example, my records show that A-231 has received 22+ gallons of epoxy and immeasurable yards of cloth, roving and mat for repairs in 10 years of service. Do I consider "Periwinkle" less of an Ariel with 10% of her fabric replaced? Not really... She has the best claim at being A-231 and that's all I can ask of her.