Re: [PUP] Any suggestion - or PPM should die ?
Well - that seems to have perked the discussions ... !
So far, I requested opinions, experiences and suggestions, and some
basis/experience thereof.
Instead, I seem to have received 6 pages of directed-mail with a
somewhat negative tone, and no suggestions ?
Lets's see;
Ross A. - tankage is needed - I agree.
Says radar is needed - ;(
Junks the "junk" - ;)
Ken Williams -
No suggestions,
Also says radar is needed.
Disputes the Nordhavn stuff -except kind of, somewhat, not.
Ken - You have a great website ! I enjoy Your posts.
You have the best research/rational decisions of any passagemaker I know
of. Please keep it up.
$$ - Maybe You are making the correct choice for You ?
Probably, in my opinion. I hope so.
John M - Likewise enjoy Your posts.
No suggestions.
High usage in production boats - nonsense.
Out of 300 boats, 1 M miles in 5 years ?
Note that the pennant program only captures the ones who trawler - not
the 2/3 who stay home. Average is average, not average of travellers.
Does not like me to criticise too-expensive junk. The sub zero would be
an example.
Valerie -
Likes camraderie -good for You !
No suggestions.
Bob E-
Agrees with me.
Notes that people who buy expensive stuff hate for anyone to criticize it.
Agrees on "apparent systems".
On value, cheap and price;
I have bought and used much more expensive stuff, than yachts, many
times for a long time. I worked on 60 M$ systems. Many of my tools I
owned were 150k$ each.
And I still criticized the manufacturers for selling junk ! (Most did,
and still do).
General;
$$ - People buy whatever they want.
Experience - I agree with You very much. Everyone starts somewhere and
gains experience. Those who travel and trawler, gain experience in it.
But most buyers do not have that experience when they start, or do they ?
Many people are conditioned to buy "brand". That why the marine industry
sells "brand" rather than quality.
In a sea of relative quality, everyone picks the best option they can.
This does not mean that they pick from good or excellent options available.
This used to apply esp. to the US, although over the last 10 years the
same unfortunate tendency has spread to Europe.
That does not mean that the production boat people are making the right
choices. It does not mean that they are building the right thing. It
does not mean that they are doing a good job. And it does not make their
products inherently safe, fit-for purpose and / or reliable.
I have a few questions for all of You with production boats.
Do the people with high-value production boats believe there is
something wrong in criticizing poor installations, building practices etc. ?
Do you think that these boats should need large amounts of expensive
maintenance and parts ?
Do You believe that its understandable to have failures, errors, poor
installations, leaky seals, shoddy paint, poor electrical schemes,
hard-to-reach installations etc. ?
Do You believe that by paying for this maintenance, as You then solve
the problem for Yourselves, You are getting a good deal ?
I have reason and experience for my opinions.
Now, in my experience, the reason manufacturers get away with poor
products in the engineering fields is lack of know-how on the part of
buyers. This certainly applied to PC4s, IT and telecommunications. Most
database and telco stuff is the same - poor ridiculously expensive junk.
The base reason is that the guy buying it does not pay for it - nor is
he resposible for it when it goes wrong, as he just says "oh we buoght
cisco or hp or ibm or oracle or whatever - its the best stuff, so its
certainly not my fault".
When I did IT stuff (or do), I always knew more about it than the sales
people. Usually more than their tech people. At the end of the day, I
got great service, great products, and successfully installed very large
and very expensive complex systems for a lot of money. That run
extremely well, very cheaply, very profitably. And I always got paid on
results, or owned the biz. The manufacturers fixed a lot of expensive
errors on their part, at their dime, invested a great deal of expensive
effort on doing it right - and we usually became their biggest customer
in that business sector or country.
Sometime, I had to change manufacturers 4-5 times, until they were
willing to fix their failures.
I would like to make the humble suggestion that when I criticize
something, maybe it because there is something wrong with it ?
And I would also like to offer that I have never criticized anyone
personally - I certainly feel no need for that.
I believe the PPM is a great thread.
However, if we are not going to get suggestion, ideas and examples, how
can we proceed ?
Hannu:
I don't know how you can say that I had no suggestion. If anything, I am
usually guilty of having TOO many suggestions and opinions...
My suggestion is specifically:
Each buyer's Perfect Passagemaker is unique to that buyer. The best we can
do is to outline the options so that when each of us refit our boats, or
pick a new boat, we understand the full range of possibilities, so that we
get as close as possible to our Perfect Passagemaker on the first try. All
of us have bought a boat, and then wished we had done something differently.
That's a lot of money wasted. If we educate ourselves on what the pros and
cons of each option are, and leave breadcrumbs for others, we'll have done
something of value.
We've actually been doing that in an unstructured manner over the past
couple of months; discussions of house battery banks, charging systems, hull
types, stabilizers, length to width ratios etc.
My suggestion would be that we pick one system at a time, according to our
mood, and discuss it until we lose interest. I think I gave a list a few
months back of what the "systems" on a boat might be:
- Hull (wood, FRP, Steel, Aluminun, hull shapes, etc)
- Propulsion (engine brands, single vs twin, fuel efficiency, value of wing
engine, redundancy, engine controls, dripless shafts, prop selection, etc) - Communications (internet, ssb, epirbs, fax, vhf, nets)
- Stabilization (active fins, paravanes, anti-roll tanks, etc)
- A/C (conventional, chilled water, soft starts, vfds, etc)
- Electrical (battery charging, inverters, diagnosing problems,
international power, isolation and step-up transformers, cables, etc) - Entertainment systems (movie servers, sat radio, tv receivers, etc)
- International cruising special requirements (international power adapters,
passarelles, med mooring etc) - Galley (gas vs electric, best barbecue, grey water tanks, refrigerators,
freezers, etc) - Monitoring systems (what needs monitored, what is possible, etc)
- Cabins (Ventilation, port lights, mattresses, etc)
- Tenders (davits, inflatable vs hard bottom, water toys, fendering, etc)
- Ground tackle (snubbing, anchor selection, rode, winlasses, etc)
- Diving (hookahs, compressors, tanks, etc)
- Hydraulics (cooling, ??? - I'm a complete loss on hyrdraulics)
- Navigation Systems (nav software, radar, ais, sonar, gps)
- Fuel and oil (filters, cleaning, storing, transfer systems, filling,
bio-protection, alleged efficiency enhancers etc) - Safety (rafts, flares, ditch bags, epirbs, sat radios, medical kits, life
rings, survival suits, etc)
I'm sure I forgot several systems in the list above, but you should see
where I'm going with this.
In short .. There are as many different "Perfect Passagemakers" as there are
buyers. The best we can do is to help buyers know what to ask for - so,
let's focus there. Rather than saying "What do I think makes a perfect
boat?" we should say instead: "According to different cruising plans, and
budgets, what are the possibilities, and how does a buyer pick between them,
so they arrive at their Perfect Passagemaker?".
-Ken Williams
Sans Souci, Nordhavn 68
www.kensblog.com
Your assumption that the 2/3 who haven't signed up for the pennant program
"stay at home" is incorrect. Some people just don't care about the program.
I know of at least one circumnavigator who hasn't bothered to sign up and
doesn't care. So maybe an average of people who care about the program is
accurate.
Alex
(snip)
John M - Likewise enjoy Your posts.
No suggestions.
High usage in production boats - nonsense.
Out of 300 boats, 1 M miles in 5 years ?
Note that the pennant program only captures the ones who trawler - not
the 2/3 who stay home. Average is average, not average of travellers.
Does not like me to criticise too-expensive junk. The sub zero would be
an example.
y known as Trawler World Productions.
Good Morning Ken,
I agree with your post in that I think there needs to be structure in
the discussion as it does tend to wander a bit.
My suggestion (however humble) is that you might want to approach the
discussion in much the same way that a designer approaches the design or
a builder might build the boat.
In other words, focus on the big picture first...what is the hull
material, what is the general arrangement etc....and try to limit the
discussion to these topics until they are almost defined. I say almost,
because they can always be revisited, but you gotta start somewhere!
Just my two cents...
Thanks,
Brian
Brian said: "... In other words, focus on the big picture first...what is
the hull
material, what is the general arrangement etc....and try to limit the
discussion to these topics until they are almost defined. I say almost,
because they can always be revisited, but you gotta start somewhere!..."
Brian:
In the scenario I described, it wouldn't matter which order you tackle
systems, because there are no right or wrong answers. For instance, you
mention hulls. I would contend that every possible hull is a valid option
for the "Perfect Passagemaker," because there is no one perfect boat. Is
there a buyer for whom each possible hull type is the right answer -- sure.
There occasionally might be a case where one system affects another, but
this is rare. A discussion of nav systems is the same whether you have a
wood, FRP, steel or aluminum hull. A discussion of ground tackle is the
same, whether you have one engine or two, etc.
-Ken Williams
Sans Souci, N6805
www.kensblog.com
I hear ya, I was just trying to focus things a bit....
-----Original Message-----
From:
passagemaking-under-power-bounces+brian.smyth=ns.sympatico.ca@lists.samu
rai.com
[mailto:passagemaking-under-power-bounces+brian.smyth=ns.sympatico.ca@li
sts.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Ken Williams
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:04 PM
To: 'Passagemaking Under Power List'
Subject: Re: [PUP] Any suggestion - or PPM should die ?
Brian said: "... In other words, focus on the big picture first...what
is
the hull
material, what is the general arrangement etc....and try to limit the
discussion to these topics until they are almost defined. I say almost,
because they can always be revisited, but you gotta start somewhere!..."
Brian:
In the scenario I described, it wouldn't matter which order you tackle
systems, because there are no right or wrong answers. For instance, you
mention hulls. I would contend that every possible hull is a valid
option
for the "Perfect Passagemaker," because there is no one perfect boat. Is
there a buyer for whom each possible hull type is the right answer --
sure.
There occasionally might be a case where one system affects another, but
this is rare. A discussion of nav systems is the same whether you have a
wood, FRP, steel or aluminum hull. A discussion of ground tackle is the
same, whether you have one engine or two, etc.
-Ken Williams
Sans Souci, N6805
www.kensblog.com
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World
Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Here's a suggestion... as opposed to rambling around with a blank
sheet of paper, let's start with a specific example of an all-out
passagemaker, Dashew's Windhorse, which was designed for optimal
passagemaking comfort and safety, and compare/contrast his approaches
and decisions to those this group might find desirable. Windhorse
represents an extreme end of passagemaking vessels, opposite end of
spectrum from most production boats, but likely closer to where this
PPM thread should be taking us, albeit we'd like to produce a smaller
vessel at significantly lower cost.
(The production vessel that has emerged from Steve's work, the FPB64,
is still $2-3 million USD, and likely above the range that we want to
focus our PPM effort toward.)
Steve has very publicly discussed his concepts, tradeoffs and decision
processes on his web page, and has always been open to discussion.
He's laid out his decisions and rationale for building as he did,
system by system.
If we start from there, looking for cost reduction opportunities by
examining different approaches, system by system, we'd at least be
starting from a proven concept of an extremely reliable and
comfortable passagemaker. It would also impose some "comparative
evaluation" structure on the discussion.
As we used to say back when I was an engineer, "there is nothing more
terrifying than staring at a blank sheet of paper." Better to start
with something and work our way from there to the place we want to be.
Here's the primer:
http://www.setsail.com/dashew/do_PARADIGM.html
John
On Dec 8, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Brian Smyth wrote:
Good Morning Ken,
I agree with your post in that I think there needs to be structure in
the discussion as it does tend to wander a bit.
My suggestion (however humble) is that you might want to approach the
discussion in much the same way that a designer approaches the
design or
a builder might build the boat.
In other words, focus on the big picture first...what is the hull
material, what is the general arrangement etc....and try to limit the
discussion to these topics until they are almost defined. I say
almost,
because they can always be revisited, but you gotta start somewhere!
Just my two cents...
Thanks,
Brian
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World
Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Hannu,
Being new here, I'm not up to speed on your history in this group. I'd like
to empathise with your input but I can't see where you're going with this.
May I ask you to explain what your specific interest in the PPM topic is
please..?
Thanks.
Callum.
Callum McCormick
http://www.m0mcx.co.uk/
I think that the idea of talking about systems, materials, and reliability
is a good one. Within each person's definition of a PPM lie many common
systems from bilge pumps to engines. Size may dictate models or brands, but
it is still all good. It is also important to understand the intended use of
your PPM. For example, the PPM for the Inside Passage and Alaska might be
constructed of different materials than a PPM intended for runs from New
England to Trinidad.
The PPM topic serves as a vehicle for learning just as the Passagemaker List
does.
Ron Rogers
Hello, could we ask all the sailors on here to look at not the top 600K trawler but put their experience to making a good seaworthy small passagemaker, and what a small passagemaker would need. I think it is good to look at the top of the market knowing the products which have world wide reputation but when you have to put your mind to the economical solution and making the budget solution there may be a different story.
Any thoughts ?
Regards
David
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Ron Rogers rcrogers6@kennett.net wrote:
From: Ron Rogers rcrogers6@kennett.net
Subject: Re: [PUP] Any suggestion - or PPM should die ?
To: "'Passagemaking Under Power List'" passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 7:24 AM
I think that the idea of talking about systems, materials, and reliability
is a good one. Within each person's definition of a PPM lie many common
systems from bilge pumps to engines. Size may dictate models or brands, but
it is still all good. It is also important to understand the intended use of
your PPM. For example, the PPM for the Inside Passage and Alaska might be
constructed of different materials than a PPM intended for runs from New
England to Trinidad.
The PPM topic serves as a vehicle for learning just as the Passagemaker List
does.
Ron Rogers
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World Productions,
formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Hello, could we ask all the sailors on here to look at not the top 600K
trawler but put their experience to making a good seaworthy small
passagemaker, and what a small passagemaker would need. I think it is good
to look at the top of the market knowing the products which have world
wide reputation but when you have to put your mind to the economical
solution and making the budget solution there may be a different story.
Any thoughts ?
Regards
David
REPLY
One thing that is quite obvious to me. Back in the late sixties when I
first got into boating we did not have so many conveniences and personal
comfort equipment. Not that I am opposed to comfort and convenience but
how about reading any of the accounts by globe trotting cruisers like Hal
Roth, Eric and Susan Hiscock, in and Larry Pardey, Bob Bebee; not to
forget more recent cruisers like Ben Gray in Idlewild and Steve Dashew. In
recent months I have heard people say in a slightly disparaging tone that
these people are minimalist or that the speaker isn't into camping out or
willing to live in a college dormitory type environment. The point is
these were the pioneers who proved it could be done.
The common denominator these days seems to be a degree of self indulgence
rarely heard of in earlier times. That's fine if you can afford these
things, but lets admit they are not essential. Having clean tanks to store
potable water in is essential. Having a spa complete with hot and cold
running showers, mistings and water massage is not. For that matter is a
full size bathtub really critical? Some cruisers in bygone days hung up
a black plastic bag to get sun warmed showers. Ok ok I admit this may be
going beyond the pale and so does blocking up the cockpit foot well to
make a tub. But you know what I mean.
There are critical systems and then there are other systems. It used to be
potable water was delivered to the sink with a foot pump as a conservation
measure. For regular clean-up you used salt water. Nowadays it seems you
are deprived if the RO water maker cannot deliver 600 GPD for multiple
fresh water showers for every crew member each day.
A main cabin stove was once considered the height of luxury and comfort.
Today it has to be a central hot water hydronic heating system, preferably
by Kabola ($14k) but if you go cheap you get a Webasto or Espar ( only
$6k)
AT one time cruisers used blocks of ice and a refrigerator was a luxury.
Today a fridge is the norm and most also have a freezer. But even that is
not enough. The better equipped cruising boat must also have ice makers
and a wine chiller. And Garbage disposal in the sink drain! Quite apart
from the question of using these in some jurisdictions, is this really the
way to treat our environment?
Have our collective self indulgence gotten in the way of common sense?
How many cruising people can still navigate with pencil, paper and a stop
watch. How many can actually take a celestial sight and reduce it to a
plot? We take it for granted that instant positioning to an accuracy of
less than a boat length is the norm. Its very nice but is it essential?
(I'm ducking for cover)
The list is endless. However the list of "absolutely essential" systems
hasn't changed that much and will not be greatly different, be it a 36
footer or a 76 foot luxury megayacht.
Drinking water, food storage, propulsion fuel, cooking facility of some
kind (forget gourmet cooking) and a dry warm bunk to sleep when off watch.
Those are the essentials. Almost everything else becomes comfort systems
of ever increasing complexicity. And the more complex, the harder it is to
maintain, not to mention being expensive.
Hey if you have the money, by all means indulge and enjoy! But there are
other approaches.
Arild
old timer who started in wooden boats
I suppose there are other approaches as you say... we could still be
putting blocks of ice in our ice boxes at home too. And coal in the
basement to shovel into the fire. The first few cars I owned didn't
have air-conditioning (one didn't have a heater either). People still
live in cabins in the woods without running water or indoor plumbing
and burn wood to stay warm.
No, we don't need any of the newer things, but I'm betting that few
people on the list would want to go back to shoveling coal and hauling
ice blocks for their house, not to mention driving 1950's cars.
I don't see the attraction in doing that in a boat either. A good
liveaboard long-range cruising boat, IMHO, should reflect
approximately the same level of technical sophistication and comfort
of our cars and homes.
Which begs the decision on direction... a small $300K primitive (but
admittedly very reliable) boat, or something between $500K and a
million that has modern equipment and comforts, ala our houses and cars.
Instead of endlessly debating this, I say lets put it to a vote and
then proceed accordingly. Those who want to participate can the do so.
John Marshall
On Dec 10, 2008, at 6:34 PM, 2elnav@netbistro.com wrote:
Hello, could we ask all the sailors on here to look at not the top
600K
trawler but put their experience to making a good seaworthy small
passagemaker, and what a small passagemaker would need. I think it
is good
to look at the top of the market knowing the products which have
world
wide reputation but when you have to put your mind to the economical
solution and making the budget solution there may be a different
story.
Any thoughts ?
Regards
David
REPLY
One thing that is quite obvious to me. Back in the late sixties
when I
first got into boating we did not have so many conveniences and
personal
comfort equipment. Not that I am opposed to comfort and convenience
but
how about reading any of the accounts by globe trotting cruisers
like Hal
Roth, Eric and Susan Hiscock, in and Larry Pardey, Bob Bebee; not to
forget more recent cruisers like Ben Gray in Idlewild and Steve
Dashew. In
recent months I have heard people say in a slightly disparaging tone
that
these people are minimalist or that the speaker isn't into camping
out or
willing to live in a college dormitory type environment. The point is
these were the pioneers who proved it could be done.
The common denominator these days seems to be a degree of self
indulgence
rarely heard of in earlier times. That's fine if you can afford these
things, but lets admit they are not essential. Having clean tanks to
store
potable water in is essential. Having a spa complete with hot and
cold
running showers, mistings and water massage is not. For that matter
is a
full size bathtub really critical? Some cruisers in bygone days
hung up
a black plastic bag to get sun warmed showers. Ok ok I admit this
may be
going beyond the pale and so does blocking up the cockpit foot well to
make a tub. But you know what I mean.
There are critical systems and then there are other systems. It used
to be
potable water was delivered to the sink with a foot pump as a
conservation
measure. For regular clean-up you used salt water. Nowadays it seems
you
are deprived if the RO water maker cannot deliver 600 GPD for multiple
fresh water showers for every crew member each day.
A main cabin stove was once considered the height of luxury and
comfort.
Today it has to be a central hot water hydronic heating system,
preferably
by Kabola ($14k) but if you go cheap you get a Webasto or Espar
( only
$6k)
AT one time cruisers used blocks of ice and a refrigerator was a
luxury.
Today a fridge is the norm and most also have a freezer. But even
that is
not enough. The better equipped cruising boat must also have ice
makers
and a wine chiller. And Garbage disposal in the sink drain! Quite
apart
from the question of using these in some jurisdictions, is this
really the
way to treat our environment?
Have our collective self indulgence gotten in the way of common sense?
How many cruising people can still navigate with pencil, paper and a
stop
watch. How many can actually take a celestial sight and reduce it to a
plot? We take it for granted that instant positioning to an
accuracy of
less than a boat length is the norm. Its very nice but is it
essential?
(I'm ducking for cover)
The list is endless. However the list of "absolutely essential"
systems
hasn't changed that much and will not be greatly different, be it a 36
footer or a 76 foot luxury megayacht.
Drinking water, food storage, propulsion fuel, cooking facility of
some
kind (forget gourmet cooking) and a dry warm bunk to sleep when off
watch.
Those are the essentials. Almost everything else becomes comfort
systems
of ever increasing complexicity. And the more complex, the harder it
is to
maintain, not to mention being expensive.
Hey if you have the money, by all means indulge and enjoy! But
there are
other approaches.
Arild
old timer who started in wooden boats
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World
Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Wood, wood? Why, when I started in boating we had to use reeds and
goatskins, youngster.
Ron Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: 2elnav@netbistro.com
Arild
old timer who started in wooden boats
The fuel polishing debate interests me. Steve D'Antonio of Passagemaker
Magazine, whom I have come to respect, is a strong advocate of fuel
polishing. Moreover, he says the high flows of this kind of system require a
larger fuel pump and larger piping; so you need to polish with a separate
system in addition to the normal fuel filtering system.
The largest part of the argument against a polishing system is a perceived
minimal return on investment. The polishing system is expensive and there is
(almost always) a way around needing it.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we brainstorm a
creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering done
without duplicating systems?
Regards,
Bob Frenier
Bob,
I have read most of Steve D'Antonio's articles on fuel systems and
polishing and have enough respect for his Gearheadedness to believe that if
there were a cheaper, more practical way to do this he would enlighten us
all. We can argue matters of degree of contamination, I suppose. His systems
presume polishing a bad supply taken on in a remote location, or turning
over fuel stored seasonally fast enough to clean between the baffles in the
tanks. The return on investment argument pertains to being cheaper than
paying for tank cleaning and fuel polishing once it ruins your day and
causes both engines to die when supplied by a common sourse. Its more
effective than a second "get home engine" that goes dead and leaves you
powerless. Wooupps, there I good arguing the pros and cons of needing
it.....sorry!
Dave Evans
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Bob Frenier frenier@hughes.net wrote:
The fuel polishing debate interests me. Steve D'Antonio of Passagemaker
Magazine, whom I have come to respect, is a strong advocate of fuel
polishing. Moreover, he says the high flows of this kind of system require
a
larger fuel pump and larger piping; so you need to polish with a separate
system in addition to the normal fuel filtering system.
The largest part of the argument against a polishing system is a perceived
minimal return on investment. The polishing system is expensive and there
is
(almost always) a way around needing it.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we brainstorm
a
creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering done
without duplicating systems?
Regards,
Bob Frenier
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World
Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Bob Frenier wrote
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we brainstorm
a creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering done
without duplicating systems?
Regards,
Bob Frenier
REPLY
for those boats already equipped with an eqaualizing tube joining the two
tanks; how about cutting into that pipe and diverting it to one of those
"contractor" style refueling pumps they have on a drum in the back of
their pick up trucks.
These pumps can be had in 12VDC 24VDC and 120VAC
The big pipe will allow faster flow and installation of a big filter with
a turbine water separator. The return from the pump can be diverted to
either tank. This allows for taking dirty fuel and depositing in a clean
tank or simply recirculating it.
Admittedly these are not "marine" grade. They are rugged industrial units.
They are ignition proof to meet UL fuel pumping standards.
When I worked for a power utility we used such a system to "polish" the
transformer oil during the once a year downtime maintenance. We pumped
and filtered 2000 gallons in less than a day shift. Pump and filter
mounted on one of those little hand trucks. The filter canister was 24"
tall and 8" diameter. 100% water separation since even the tiniest bit
would cause the energized transformer to blow up if water was present.
Arild
Good Morning Bob,
Thought I'd wade into this discussion and tell you our experience with
building fuel panels.
Basically we have been building fuel transfer/filtering systems for
years that perform both functions quite nicely, and is relatively
inexpensive to do.
Here's how we do it...
First of all as an example, let's use Mr. Wagner's boat.....it has three
main storage tanks and a large day tank.
We built a fuel board that has an inlet manifold and an outlet manifold.
All of the boats main storage tanks and the day tank feed into the inlet
manifold using 3/4" lines. This allows you to draw from any tank, or the
day tank.
From the inlet manifold we go to a set of dual Racor filters, and then
to the fuel pump. The type of pump will depend on the size of the boat
and the size of the fuel tanks. Sometimes we also incorporate a "Y"
valve here to enable the use of a manual pump for emergency fuel
transfer.
Anyway, the pump sucks the fuel through the filters and sends it to the
outlet manifold.
The outlet manifold is also connected to all the fuel storage tanks and
the day tank with 3/4 inch lines.
This system basically allows you to draw from any tank, through the
filters and return to any tank using large bore lines. Typically the
pump we use is around 13 GPM.
The day tank then feeds the main engine and the genset, or wing engine,
through their own single Racors, and all of the fuel returns from the
engines go back to the day tank.
This system seems to work quite well and we have not had any issues from
owners in the last 8 years that they have been in operation. Actually,
the only thing ever done to modify the system was that one owner
installed a larger pump to transfer fuel more quickly.
Funny thing is that if you read the literature from the filter
manufacturers, it doesn't say that you can get the GPM flow through that
we do, but it does work.
Hope this helps, we have no problem handing out drawings or schematics
of the system if anyone wants to see them......
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: passagemaking-under-power-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:passagemaking-under-power-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf
Of 2elnav@netbistro.com
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:43 AM
To: Passagemaking Under Power List
Subject: Re: [PUP] PMM fuel polishing
Bob Frenier wrote
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we
brainstorm
a creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering
done
without duplicating systems?
Regards,
Bob Frenier
REPLY
for those boats already equipped with an eqaualizing tube joining the
two
tanks; how about cutting into that pipe and diverting it to one of those
"contractor" style refueling pumps they have on a drum in the back of
their pick up trucks.
These pumps can be had in 12VDC 24VDC and 120VAC
The big pipe will allow faster flow and installation of a big filter
with
a turbine water separator. The return from the pump can be diverted to
either tank. This allows for taking dirty fuel and depositing in a clean
tank or simply recirculating it.
Admittedly these are not "marine" grade. They are rugged industrial
units.
They are ignition proof to meet UL fuel pumping standards.
When I worked for a power utility we used such a system to "polish" the
transformer oil during the once a year downtime maintenance. We pumped
and filtered 2000 gallons in less than a day shift. Pump and filter
mounted on one of those little hand trucks. The filter canister was 24"
tall and 8" diameter. 100% water separation since even the tiniest bit
would cause the energized transformer to blow up if water was present.
Arild
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World
Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
While the discussions are interesting, I don't think the PPM is achievable
without a set of reasonably narrow requirements. And there will never be
more than a couple of us that agree on any one set of requirements although
cost may be a good starting point - I'd vote for the $500K to a million PPM.
Someone recently made the suggestion to concentrate on the systems that go
into the PPM rather than the PPM itself and that would probably be a lot
more productive.
Jon Hill
-----Original Message-----
-under-power-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of John Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December, 2008 18:52
To: Passagemaking Under Power List
Subject: Re: [PUP] Any suggestion - or PPM should die?
Which begs the decision on direction... a small $300K primitive (but
admittedly very reliable) boat, or something between $500K and a million
that has modern equipment and comforts, ala our houses and cars.
Instead of endlessly debating this, I say lets put it to a vote and then
proceed accordingly. Those who want to participate can the do so.
John Marshall
I use a polishing system and it works well but like a lot of
suggestions on this blog it depends on how you intend to use your
boat. If you are passaging far and wide through third world, and some
not so third world, areas it is a safety devise. If however you are
coastal U.S. where you can control supply better and are on a budget
then I'd pass. Traveled many thousands of miles and didn't need it but
then ..... God Bless - Ross 10&2
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Bob Frenier frenier@hughes.net wrote:
The fuel polishing debate interests me. Steve D'Antonio of Passagemaker
Magazine, whom I have come to respect, is a strong advocate of fuel
polishing. Moreover, he says the high flows of this kind of system require a
larger fuel pump and larger piping; so you need to polish with a separate
system in addition to the normal fuel filtering system.
The largest part of the argument against a polishing system is a perceived
minimal return on investment. The polishing system is expensive and there is
(almost always) a way around needing it.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we brainstorm a
creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering done
without duplicating systems?
Regards,
Bob Frenier
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons of polishing, why don't we
brainstorm a
creative way for our PMM to get both polishing and final filtering done
without duplicating systems?
I found the best fuel polishers I had on Derreen (Monk 36) were its
generator with a 10:1 return on consumption, and the main with its 2.5:1
r:c. The only time she wasn't polishing fuel was when she was tied to a dock
somewhere.
-- Jim