The album of Ariel #422

[CapnK]

Quick edit to take out the upper wall portions...

[mbd]

Dangit Kurt! Now you've got me daydreaming instead of working again! I was going to comment on "cutting" your large deadlight in half with a bulkhead and the potential maintenance issues should you ever have to remove said deadlight - then you posted the second drawing. So I won't point that out, although I guess I just did.

So, in thinking of your aft head location, I got to thinking of a couple of other layouts with the same, like the Flicka and the closely related Allegra 24. (I just added a pic of its enclosed head) Same beam, BTW. Both have nice and open v-berths and an enclosed head.

So I say, how about bring that bulkhead forward to between the deadlights? It takes up more space, but any "extra" could certainly be used for wet storage, like up under the cockpit. The extra bit of room just may make the head a little more welcoming and a place you could sit and read a good book, or, heaven forbid, get rid of some bad fish... Just a thought.

[ebb]

Kurt,
Now THAT'S a great idea - opening up the top. Keeps spaciousness, disapates odors. Could soft screen the top, along with the doorway - and it solves the bulkhead over the deadlite issue. If it is an issue: I've seen this work in pics of other boats if the bulkhead is NOT made an issue. If it is designed so that the critical eye sees the solution as, say, providing light to an 'enclosed' space and also providing an open feeling to the accomadation, then there is nothing 'wrong' with it. If the bulkhead was structural, it couldn't work. But as 'furniture', if it can be called that, it's fine!

Another thought: If you step the foreandaft companionway bulkhead (instead of adding cleats and steps to a sheer surface) you could created more room inside the head. Especially knee-room! What I mean is that you could make one side of the comp. ladder with a wall that is stepped out with ledges that are actually space makers inside the head. Maybe just one step could be done that way with the wall. NO?

[CapnK]

Lovin' the input, fellas - you're making me think.

Mike - Moving the forward wall up to the spot 'tween deadlights would give more space, but at the same time it'd take away from galley counter/drawer space (and sealed locker/potential floaty space, too). Dang those compromises! For someone my size or smaller, there is enough knee-room in that dimension. I'll measure it and post the #'s eventually. Due to our wineglass-shaped hulls, what it lacks is flat floor space, one low enough to provide some headroom when standing. Still fiddling with this to optimize what space I do have...

AFA this interfering with deadlight mounting/maintenance: I'm planning on doing something like I think Tony is doing with his deadlights, re-making them so that Lexan mounts into an external recess built into the cabin trunk, fastened from the outside. (Don't expect my work to look nearly as good as Tony's does when it comes to that stage, though. ) So far my rough plan is to mount structure on the inside that will enable me to enlarge to deadlight opening to the same outline shape as the current, original frames. By doing that, when viewed from outside the Lexan will have the same overall proportions as the original deadlights w/frames. In this, I will be preserving the original look, while making for a much more substantial and seaworthy mount. Do dat make sense?

Ebb - the 'sideways steps' idea is good, but it my case would encroach on the access to the forward part of the under-cockpit-sole area, which I do plan to have easily accessible for stowage (tho' I am not sure exactly how, just yet...). Still, you may have given me the genesis of an idea to increase that flat floor space, by rotating the direction of the porta potti to athwartships instead of fore-and-aft. Hmm...

[CapnK]

Bill -

The oak supports sort of did that, resting on the v-berth floor. I've removed them, so I'll widen the base of the bulkhead plywood both above and below the level of the step-up v-berth floor area (or, where that used to be, since I dropped it a bit). The bulkhead doesn't actually touch the hull at that point, there is a gap there. I am going to fill all of that in, so as to spread loads around as much as possible.

[ebb]

Kurt sir,

If you are interested, my magnum opus on the beam subject is at post #50 on the old but current Strongback thread. I think it's worth thrashing.

[CapnK]

Ebb -

I am committed to a course of action already. But - I do think it's going to work, and work well.

Sorry for the quality of the pics - dim light (rainy here today), and a cell-phone camera...

I picked it up this AM, tore my boat apart to make it fit in, and just tacked it in place to gaze for a while. Ahhhh.... finally!

At the top middle, that's a reflection, not a gap. It sits within 1/4" of the cabin top all the way across the 3' span.

Can't wait to be able to take good, ***finished*** pics of the interior. Even so, that's a few months away...

Outboard of the ends of this structure will be small vertical 'walls', one on either side of the bulkhead area by a few inches, creating a box structure in order to keep the deck from flexing in that area (many moons ago I posted about that, I think there are pics here somewhere). I will also "sister" the top of the support with some 2-2.5" ribs that will span the overhead, sitting just fore and aft of the support. More anti-flex, stiffness-inducing structure.

I think I am going to have this welder make me a tabernacle, also...

Cost came out to 3 Boat Units. Not bad! By the time it is said and done, I will have sub-5 BU in materials and fabrication of said for the new mast support and external chainplate setup.

[Tony G]

Did you say less than 5 boat units? Including the tabernacle?!! That's good dealing on your part.

I like the direction you're headed with Katie Marie. It's a welcome deviation from the 'norm' or remods. If there is such a thing. There are just so dang many options and directions one can persue once you make that first cut.

Really looking forward to this one coming together over the next few months. Specially since it's now officially too cold to do much of anything up here

Hats off to ya, Kurt. Keep it coming.

[CapnK]

*Not* including a tabernacle - that is just something I have been considering, and this guy does really good work. His welds are really nice, and I am getting exactly what I design.

Though I do like the SS Ballinger (?) hinged mast step, I think a tabernacle is a better way to go for me. Ideally, I would like to be able to lower the mast by myself as easily as possible, if/when need be. It looks like to me that a tabernacle offers some better options than just a hinged base. It can be designed so that the spar can clear the cabintop step, for instance, as well as giving me stronger connection to the deck due to having a larger base (that I design that way).

So that means I have to come up with a different mast base solution, especially considering that I am not screwing/bolting thru-deck into a wooden beam any longer. Ideally, I want to not directly mechanically (or therefore electrically) bind the mast to the aluminum support inside. Cuts down on corrosion, and helps keep lightning out of the inside of the boat*, that way.

And I don't really have to design a tabernacle, really - I just have to adapt an age-old design to this particular boat. Right now, I am considering through-bolting it to the aforementioned 'ribs' on either side of the aluminum mast support.

------

An ebbdendum (if I can coin a phrase ) to the above: there is a lot of uncertainty about lightning, except for three things that I can see:

1) It can cause a lot of property (and personal) damage.
2) It is not at all predictable.
3) That it *does* like to go to ground along the most direct path, is about the only thing scientists seem to know for sure.

The most direct route OFF of the boat from the masthead (the most likely place to take a strike) is: the backstay.

Backstays make no turns on the way down, and terminate closer to 'earth' than the forestay. On our boats, they also have the added bonus of having the most physical separation from belowdecks. OK, only by a little bit, but that might be enough. So it seems to me that they are the best way to attempt to route lightning, or at least to give it a good, easy path to ground. I have some ideas about that, for down the road...

Might not be much of a concern for a lot of you, but lightning here is fairly frequent, year-round, and darn near a plague in summer. There's that, and a couple too-close experiences with it, so I am keeping it in mind as I do all this.

[CapnK]

Holy Moly!!!

Amazing that you can see the tracks of the voltage.

Wow.

Did she stay afloat?

[Commander227]

Yes...kinda.... The Ensign will not sink as it has positive floatation, so swamped is more like it. When I went to check on her in the morning she was awash to her rubrail. I had to run a 8hp gas trash pump to keep her high enough to cross the lake to get to the crane. A long weekend of grinding out the damage and laying up repairs and she was back in the water. The glass was mostly intact where the lightning went through the hull, but the resin was vaporized out of the the glass cloth.
Makes me happy I was not on the boat at the time.

[ebb]

Commander227,
Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!

Mind a few questions?

I can understand a wire 'bonded' thru-hull showing the EXIT of the electric shock
but do the other EXITS seen in your photos have any relation to metal or the bonding system?
Or do you think they are entirely random? Could a wired in bilgepump have taken a hit and the jolt hopped to the hull?
I have a paper here that reports surveyors have noticed lightning EXITS along the TOP of encapsulated ballast. Any indication of this phenomena on the Ensign?

Did the strike fry electronics like we have heard happens to others?
How about the battery?


The thought of being aboard and struck by lightning isn't one bit funny. It's obvious to me that bronze thru-hulls should not be wired together - which was originally done I guess by Pearson to reduce galvanic corrosion. Of course anything going thru to the water side (and COPPER side) of the hull is going to suffer...like the sonar transducer and knot meter. And any wire (including interior mast copper wiring) or metallic surface is going to attract the strike. 'Side-flashing' is the danger for anybody on deck. Side-flashing is the strike connecting across space between metal structures.

I'm convinced that maralon thru-hulls are better than bronze from both the electronic and galvanic viewpoints. Maralon melts better than bronze.

ABYC Standards require that ALL METAL MASSES inside the boat be connected to the lightning ground - which is that large area sintered or plain bronze plate bolted to the hull.
On deck by the same rule, stanchions, winches, fittings, pipe frames must also be connected and grounded. Seems extremely difficult to do! And if aluminum is in the chain, opens the door wider to galvanics.
I would be tempted to keep the inside and outside systems separate, wouldn't you? Separate grounding plates on either side of the hull?

There's no guarantee the strike is going to hit the lightning rod you've erected on the top of the mast. I worry about the connection - copper and aluminum and the straight unimpeded path is the problem.
No guarantee the bonded and grounded system is going to be tracked by the strike!

It is said the safest place during a lightning storm is down below and away from ANY metal.
Because of metal in and around the cockpit
the most dangerous place to be on the boat is in the cockpit!

SO:
What have you decided to do?

[Commander227]

Ebb,
The exits appeared to be at random, the lead ballast was not grounded so I didn't have any problems with the keel cap. the fiberglass tube that the tiller post runs through had a few holes blown in it though.
My boat has only the one through hull otherwise its a clean hull. the bilge pump was fine as was the battery (thou the pump drained it in a valiant attempt to keep Serendipity afloat) I have no electronics on the boat, but the boat next to me lost theirs. The Mast head light, Windex and the screws that hold the masthead fitting were blown away, but the rest of the lights were fine, as was the mast wiring. I was worried about the standing rigging inside the swedged fittings so I replaced that.
My Daddy always taught me to drag the spinnaker pole in the water off the back stay when sailing in threatening weather.(I don't know if it would help, but at least you feel like your doing something)
As its a proven fact that lightning never strikes the same spot twice I feel quite confident that I'm in the clear from here on out.(I think that covers my other boats as well, don't you?)

[ebb]

I think what they mean is that when lightning strikes your Ensign again
It probably won't put holes in it in exactly the same places

I agree with your Dad.
Trailing something metallic in the water is the best bet.
Spinnaker poles nws, I think the relatively simple battery cable trick with small (of some optimum size I don't know) flat copper plates brazed to the end of the cables on each one is the way to go.*

If the idea is to quide your personal strike using your mast then the lightning rod has to have special attention as to how to connect it to the mast and/or shrouds and stays.

At the moment I'm thinking that given the chances of getting hit versus the chance for galvanic corrosion using copper around aluminum, especially 30 feet up the mast where you don't go every day,
maybe the direct connections to the mast, to the shroud tangs, to the toggles for the fore and backstay
should be made with STAINLESS STEEL WIRE or cable.
Why not? Minimizes corrosion. I would still consider the usual precautions of s.s. to s.s. and s.s. to aluminum by using standard isolating tefgel and UHMW tape in making connections. Ten million volts is going to vaporize any piddly corrosion precautions!

Of course, thinking 'lightning rod' means that along with trailing the standing rigging one other track point should be included. And that is from the base of the mast. Another one or two battery cables from the mast base also trailed overboard.

Everybody agrees that when you get hit by lightning you have to expect damage. So I guess the system design should try to minimize structural damage and try to get expected damage onto sacrificial easy to replace stuff.


What do you think......????
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
*Visited a lightning ground product site - aimed at another wallet size than ours. They had cast bronze tubular affairs for the trailing end that looked like strange drain fittings. Playing 'poorman substitute' I thought that lengths of copper tube might be used with multiple staggered sawcuts lengthwise in the tube - kind of crudely imitating what they had. Multiple sharp edges seem important. And the grounding legs would maybe store better.
By the way scintered bronze does not work well as a ground. In one of Casey's books he suggests a long bronze strap rather that a rectangular plate. More fastenings but more hydro.
And there is a minority of sailors who believe that attracting lightning to the mast with a lightning rod is not a very smart thing to do, either

[CapnK]

Here's the strongback, easier to see than looking back...