Bargebuilder
-
Posts
886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Bargebuilder
-
-
13 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
It was aimed at me. You quoted me saying I had discounted a particular product due to cost, and then went on to tell me "I wouldn't exclude the chemco product on the basis of cost".
It's like most things in life, you cut your cloth according to your size.
My only reason for contributing to the thread, was to let readers know from my first hand experience, how good the Chemco system was.
Folks will look at the price and decide if it's for them.
It wasn't for you and who knows, the system you used might be superior as well as less expensive.
-
4 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
I understand that, but you are also recomending the product on the basis of the story you told of having observed a boat that was painted when wet and stood in a yard for three years, and presumably not put into service.
Absolutely right, I can only say for certain that a single coat of RS500P when applied to wet gingered steel will seal and prevent further corrosion in readiness for a top coat for three years
I chose the same product on the basis of how well it performed on that boat.
My boat used the primer and the top coat and shows no sign of degradation after 12 years in sea water.
I hope that has clarified the situation.
-
1 minute ago, rusty69 said:
I would expect it to be at least twice as good, as its is twice as expensive. That is not to say it was within my bugdet.
You say "I wouldn't exclude the chemco product on the basis of cost". However cost is a major factor to consider for us, and I suspect the vast majority of DIYer's, and it kind of belittles the decision we made.
My suggestion was, that money saved on not needing to grit blast may far exceed the additional cost of a more surface tolerant paint.
The information I gave was my personal experience with a particular product. It was aimed not at any individual, but at anyone trawling the forum, now and in the future, for information on hull coatings.
-
1 minute ago, rusty69 said:
Bear in mind the vessel was not put into service either. It was sat in a yard for 3 years.
But my barge was coated 12 years ago and it has been in sea water all of that time.
-
4 minutes ago, blackrose said:
For how long?
So why does the company who manufacture the Chemco product advise that it should NOT be applied to wet steel and that the steel must be prepared to ST2 or better? That's less surface tolerant than Jotamastic 90.
They don't!
-
2 hours ago, rusty69 said:
When I contacted chemco, their commercial coordinator advised me of the following. He mentioned nothing about mixing with water, or applying in the rain:
RS500P repels water during application, displacing it not mixing with it.
It may be no better than the Jotan equivalent, but it is very good indeed.
This is how Chemco describe the properties of RS500P on their website:
Epo-chem™ RS 500P is a unique solvent-free, wet & rust tolerant epoxy primer or primer/finish protective coating.
The system’s long-term performance is based on completely sealing the surface and arresting the rust totally.
The use of sacrificial fillers enables it to be applied to surface standards as low as Sa 1, WJ-4 or St 2. It can be utilised as a one-coat system by brush, roller or airless spray.
-
6 minutes ago, blackrose said:
No paint system can be applied to poorly prepared substrates in atrocious weather conditions and be expected to last, I'm afraid that's just fantasy. The Jotamastic you've used is about as surface tolerant at they come.
I would have agreed 100% had I not watched the Chemco product be applied to wet, gingered steel in the rain and then monitored it's performance over the following three years. A single coat held perfectly without any top coat.
The other advantage of the Chemco system is the minute platelets of glass that are included in the coating, which lay against the steel plate forming a very hard layer which is highly resistant to abrasion and only easily removable with an angle grinder and grinding disc if you get it wrong!
Back in 2011 I bought and applied by roller 80kg, 2 coats of RS500P and 5 coats of RA500M, so not only can I state from first hand experience that it performs superbly and is highly scratch and scrape resistant, but also that it is very easy to apply by ordinary roller, so no need for an airless sprayer.
I should also mention that my barge is coastal and moored on a salt marsh, a salt water environment that is probably much harsher than fresh water.
I'm sure the Jotamastic will be fine and in 5 years Rusty69 will confirm this to be the case, but I can vouch now from first hand experience that the Chemco system is excellent, having applied it to my barge 12 years ago with no sign anywhere of failure or corrosion.
-
1 hour ago, rusty69 said:
Compared to bitumen it was a much bigger outlay.
Absolutely right, compared to blacking it is expensive, but I thought you said that you had excluded Chemco glassflake, but applied a different two pack epoxy coating.
Is the Chemco surface tolerant primer very much more than other 2 pack epoxy hull coatings?
I was trying to highlight that the Chemco product can be applied to relatively poorly prepared surfaces and in atrocious weather conditions, two attributes that might have made your life a bit easier.
-
On 27/01/2023 at 16:33, rusty69 said:
I have looked into various coatings , and have discounted the chemco glass flake epoxy, and the Sherwin Williams epoxy on cost grounds.
Just in case readers are looking to undertake a similar operation, I wouldn't exclude the Chemco surface tolerant primer on the basis of cost. Given the massive effort required and/or cost involved with preparing the steel, a primer that covers and seals as well as the Chemco product, although pricey, may be seen as excellent value, especially in hindsight!
When my boat was ashore in the boat yard, there was an old steel motor launch next to it and he prepared the hull to a fairly high standard, but by the time he got round to priming it with Chemco primer, it was brown with rust all over once more. The chap arrived with the two pack product, a tray and rollers and set to work. After an hour or two it started raining and he continued to paint the wet, rusty steel hull. The rain worsened and the paint in his tray began to cover with rain water. He carried on, pushing the roller through the water to pick up the primer. I watched with interest as he finished painting the wet hull and drove off. The boat looked great in its new silver/grey livery, but I thought to myself, it'll never last.
That boat remained untouched in the yard for about three years and I kept an eye on the paint job all that time. It only had a single coat of primer and in those three years it never had a top coat, but when I saw it last there was no sign of rust anywhere.
If anything can be learnt from this, it is that if you are not sure about how well you are going to be able to do the preparation work, or simply don't intend to spend the time necessary to achieve a perfect finish, buy the best surface tolerant primer.
I applied the Chemco glass flake primer/topcoat combination to my barge in 2011 and there is zero corrosion anywhere so far. The manufacturer suggests it could be good for 25 years and given its performance so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
-
4 minutes ago, blackrose said:
How cheap does it need to be? In 18 years I've spent about a fiver on silicone grease for my vetus gland. I thought I was a miser but when I read some posts on this canal forum it puts things into perspective.
If one replaces the Volvo seal at the recommended interval - if only to ensure that a potential insurance claim is paid out in the case of failure - then the saving over a Volvo seal could be many hundreds of pounds over the lifetime of a stuffing box.
Of course many people are happy with their dripless seals, but the stuffing box itself will probably outlive the narrowboat, is a simple and cheap diy job to maintain, will still work successfully on a worn shaft and there are no lip seals or bearings to wear or fail.
A friend of mine had a PSS seal that caused serious crevice erosion of the stainless shaft from the deoxygenated water trapped after an extended period of boat inactivity.
I reiterate, dripless seals work well for many, but for many others, stuffing boxes are still the best option.
-
-
9 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:
Expensive? I just did a quick Google and found it at £120, which has gone up significantly since I last looked, but hardly a lot to pay.
I'd say your second hand issue was more likely to be shaft related - maybe an imperfect surface or an odd size? Metric v imperial? I can see a perfect fit would be essential. More pertinent, perhaps, your mechanic did use the lip seal protector when sliding the new replacement for your old leaky one it onto the shaft, did he?
By expensive, I meant £20 for a length of stuffing material every 10 years compared to £120 (plus labour perhaps) every 5 years for a Volvo seal.
I'm guessing that many people would pay someone to replace a Volvo seal, whereas re-stuffing a box is a quick, simple, diy operation.
I watched my new Volvo seal being installed and I can confirm that the seal protector was used, the shaft was in excellent condition and it was measured with digital calipers to make sure that the correct size seal was obtained; it still spattered water! It never failed, but I got fed up with it and lost confidence in it and after two years and 600 hours use, I had it replaced with a stuffing box.
My stuffing box gets a turn of the greaser at the end of each day's cruising and the collar may need adjustment every two or three years.
I have used PTFE stuffing and although the dripping is minimal, the box doesn't warm up. The bilge doesn't get wet because I have a small dish to catch the drips. There really isn't anything to fail and over the years it will be much cheaper than any 'dripless' seal.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:
I'll second @Sea Dog's praise of the Volvo stern gland. We've both got Simon Piper boats and these are a common fitting on them. Bone dry and no problems in any conditions so far, including some shallow and muddy ditches.
The Volvo 'dripless' seal is popular with some, but I inherited one when I bought a second hand boat and it dripped, in fact spattered when the shaft rotated. Imagining it to be old and worn I had it replaced, which wasn't cheap. Upon launch it was 'burped' to ensure there was no trapped air and greased with Volvo's special grease. The shaft, prior to fitting the new unit was inspected and found to be in excellent condition. The new one also spattered water when the engine was in gear! Perhaps I was unlucky, but I never felt confident in the Volvo seal.
Do Volvo not recommend replacement every 5 years or 500 hours? I do 300 hours cruising in an average year, so Volvo would have me replace it every 2 years! It may last longer for many, but it if failed and the boat sank, I wonder what an insurance company would say if a claim was made.
The two lip seals that stop your boat from sinking are tough, but incredibly fine. They may spatter or drip with age or wear, especially in silty, abrasive water. Replacement may, for some people, need to be frequent and is expensive.
I've replaced mine now with an old fashioned stuffing box. No chance of a catastrophic failure, just a few drips of water into the tray beneath whilst motoring and completely dry when the shaft isn't rotating. Very easy and cheap to re-stuff every 10 years or so: I feel a lot happier now.
-
1 minute ago, Scholar Gypsy said:
While looking for something else, I found this ....https://teamup.com/event/show/id/KDboDAc6deb2PMhoFzFN377kamKcsn
Very useful.
Thank you for that.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Owls Den said:
Is that old on bbc4 or would it likely be on iPlayer ?
I watched it on iPlayer.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:
High Water Dog in a Doublet = HW Sutton Bridge + 2 hours (approx). This will be affected by the amount of fresh water coming down the river of course. I think Sutton Bridge is pretty close to Wisbech cut, but don't quote me on that.
HW Wisbech is HW Sutton Bridge + 40 mins.,
Wisbech and Wisbech Cut are not the same place!!
Other resources here: https://scholargypsy.org.uk/washing/When I enquired of learned folk, I wasn't expecting a reply from a scholar. Thank you so much for the information and the link.
I was hoping to take the ebb from the Dog-in-a doublet, spend the night on the free waiting pontoon just past Sutton Bridge and do the Wash leg to Boston the following day: any suggestions concerning timings would be appreciated.
-
Would any of you learned folks know how much later high tide is at the Dog-in-a-Doublet lock than it is at the Wisbech cut for which I have a tide table?
-
1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:
FWIW I thought that at first, and it needed a fair bit of research to find out that was not the way they work. I THINK a pleated element may be more amenable to work in reverse. When I tried t discuss using their pleated filter in pocket filter and discuss their relative efficiency with a Filtre Auto technical chap he did not want to discuss the relative efficiencies and just said "we have had no problems". Make what you will of that but I always seek a pocket filter for diesel.
I am impressed with your depth of knowledge and deep interest in the subject. Thanks for being so generous with your expertise.
-
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:
The way agglomeators work is that ting droplets of water that can not pass through the filter paper start to build up on the surface because they can't get through the small pores. As they build up they merge like rain in a window and get larger. Eventually the fuel pressure over the area of the drop's surface creates sufficient pressure in the drop to force it through the small pore, so now you have a large water drop on the clean side. The drop is much larger and thus heavier than the original droplets so it can far more readily drop through the clean fuel. The baffles on the holes in the bottom of the filter will cause the fuel to rotate in the bowl and centrifuge (to a degree) the large droplets to the side while the lighter fuel turns 180 degrees to exit up the centre hole sans the water that collects in the bowl.
If you reverse the flow the larger water drops will just lay in the bottom of the pockets and gradually build up. There is far less space in the pockets than in the bowl. Also, if the fuel flow manages to lift the water drops there will be no centrifugal effect to spin the water to the side (no angled baffles on the top) but is will also be very close to what will now be the clean fuel outlet, and as the top of these filters has a rim water is likely to build up on it, bringing it even closer to the "outlet" port (note: the question relates to reversing the flow through the filter so this "outlet" is really the inlet as designed).
Will it clean dirt and dust from the fuel - yes.
Will it clear water droplets - up to a point probably yes but at a much reduces service life.
Will a glass/plastic bowl or the drain tap ever show ann water - almost certainly no.
Is that the filter manufacturer or the engine manufacturer? If you look at the photos that RLWP posted on the previous page you can work out from the arrows which way CAV designed it.
I think that you have this wrong. Pleated filters will store both muck and water in the bowl. pocket filter will store water in the bowl and muck in the filter pockets.
I imagined, obviously incorrectly, that the minute droplets of water caught on the filter surface would, with time, get larger and fall off, but remain on the 'dirty' side, but you are saying that once large enough, they push through the filter to the 'clean' side. That certainly would explain the recommended flow direction.
-
24 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
That is the way the fuel should flow - into the bowl, through the filter, out the top. There is nothing to stop you plumbing it the other way but why would you want to store the water and muck in the small volume inside the filter element rather than in the bowl that can have an extra extension fitted to store more horrible stuff.
I think that what might be causing confusion is the two types of filer that can be fitted to these units. The ordinary pleated filters have a solid top plate sealed to the nose on the filter head by an O ring, so fuel has to flow over the plate to the sides and then down into the bowl and through the pleated filter paper. It also has a solid bottom plate.
The pleated filters have a punched top plate, still sealed to the nose so fuel can flow down through the filter and through the sides of the "pocket". It then continues to flow downwards through holes in the baseplate that are baffled to impart some spin on the flow. The centre of the filter is an "oversized" metal tube sealed to the bottom and top plate that provides the outlet path.
Hi Tony, thanks for the reply.
I agree with you, that the fuel should flow as you describe.
The CAV filter body I am looking at has two inlets and two outlets identified by arrows and the inlets open directly above the filter element.
I have a filter element that is punched with holes at the top and has baffled, directional slots at the base.
The filtered fuel having passed through the element top to bottom into the water bowl at the bottom, passes up the tube in the centre of the element and on towards the engine.
That is the way the arrows intend it to work.
I would prefer to plumb it the way you recommend in your first paragraph for the reasons you mention, but this seems not to be what the manufacturer suggests.
Can you think of a reason why the fuel flow cannot be reversed so that it is introduced down the centre tube and into the water bowl first?
-
This is a very old thread, but can anyone think of a reason why a CAV filter/water separator couldn't be plumbed in in reverse, so that incoming fuel first enters the water bowl, passes up through the filter element and out through its top on its way to the engine?
The arrows on the filter head indicate the reverse, but maybe drops of water and bits of muck would be better held in the water bowl before the fuel passes through the paper element; any thoughts?
-
1 minute ago, Ascott83 said:
Interesting. What site is he selling on ..
If it's on the market, it's very well hidden. I think it's a Frobisher class.
It looks like it has a steel hull with possibly a grp top, but that's a guess based on appearance. If it has a grp hull then it might be a find, but it doesn't look like it.
-
12 minutes ago, PD1964 said:
Have you some link with the filtration company mentioned?
Just found it here:
Under:
Frequently asked questions,
Water,
Can I drink the water?
With the filter they suggest using, after a few weeks of use, you'd have to wait a very long time for enough water to fill a kettle.
-
5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
It is. I would like to think not many people actually do so though.
The river great Pouse is much better suited for it. Which is why I stopped swimming in it.
Lots of people swim in the Nene
The Nene river water in many places is beautifully clear, enabling one to see perhaps 3 feet down where fishes go about their business. Of all the waterways I've cruised, nowhere have I seen a greater concentration of Kingfishers or Herons. It's a river I'd highly recommend, apart from the lack of moorings and facilities.
If desperate, I might be persuaded to drink filtered Nene water, but my level of desperation would have to be very much greater to drink filtered canal water.
-
3 minutes ago, Ascott83 said:
I will be based on the nene if that makes much of a difference
One difference is, that I understand that sea toilets are allowed to pump out directly into that river!
DIY epoxy blacking.
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
I simply lifted the text from the manufacturer's website. It makes for interesting reading if you've got a moment to have a look.
I know nothing about Sherwin Williams products, but I hope not to have to epoxy coat another boat ever again, so I'll not be researching them.
Laying on your back under a steel vessel and applying seven coats of gloopy epoxy is for a younger man than me. I still remember my wife having to cut lumps out of my hair where I accidentally brushed against the wet paint.
Not fun to do, but satisfying once finished.