Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 56

[Tom Buscaglia via CnC-List]

Me too!

Tom Buscaglia
S/V Alera 
1990 C&C 37+/40
Vashon WA
P 206.463.9200
C 305.409.3660


> On Jan 15, 2018, at 6:54 PM, cnc-list-requ...@cnc-list.com wrote:
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:44:33 +
> From: Josh Muckley 
> To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> Subject: Re: Stus-List Max-Prop service
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hey guys I fixed the subject line
> 
> I too have a Max-Prop and am fond of it though I have little experience
> with alternatives.  I service mine every year by replacing the zinc and
> greasing it per the manufacturer's instructions.
> 
> Josh Muckley
> S/V Sea Hawk
> 1989 C&C 37+
> Solomons, MD
> 
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Marek Dziedzic via CnC-List]

Joel,

Why not butyl tape? (I am not questioning; just asking). In fact, I put some 
butyl tape there. I wrapped it around the cables in a cone shape, completely 
dealing the hole. Then I put the pedestal guard over it. It is not leaking for 
3 years.

Marek

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: CnC-List  on behalf of Joel Aronson via 
CnC-List 
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:41:20 PM
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
Cc: Joel Aronson
Subject: Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

I would use something like lifeseal rather than butyl.

Joel

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:30 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
Hi Josh,

Here's a link to the exterior view of the pedestal guard feet.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxc37iifz7eo596/Pedestal%20Guard%20Feet.jpg?dl=0

You can see the tape which is currently keeping out most of the water.  I 
suspect the remaining water is getting in between the foot and the teak deck.  
I believe the leak currently in only on the starboard foot, as that is the only 
one with a hole for wires.

This is making its way below, dripping onto the head area of the stern berth.

Make sense?

What would be the best way to caulk/seal this, including the tube/foot joint?

Thanks!

Bruce Whitmore

(847) 404-5092 (mobile)
bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net



From: Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>>
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
Cc: Josh Muckley mailto:muckl...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

Bruce,

Are you saying that the wires come through the pedestal guard tube?  And exit 
through the deck via the gaurd tube foot?  A picture might help.

Josh Muckley
S/V Sea Hawk
1989 C&C 37+
Solomons, MD


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 5:02 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth mattress 
foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming from the 
starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate the cockpit 
floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by applying a small layer 
of aluminum duct tape at the point where the stainless tubing penetrates the 
stainless foot. There is a hard plastic spacer that fills the gap between the 
tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem to be made of the proper material to be 
properly water resistant.

So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself, where 
it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is finished with 
teak).

What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get is 
coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining our new 
fabric!

I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard, and 
applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how would I 
also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its way between 
the tube and the foot?

Thanks for your ideas!

Bruce Whitmore

Bruce Whitmore

(847) 404-5092 (mobile)
bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contributio

Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Dennis C. via CnC-List]

Agree.

Touche' has different but functionally equivalent pedestal guard.  I just
lifted up the guard, sealed the hole in the deck with clear LifeSeal and
replaced the guard.  Creates a bit of an issue if you need to pull new or
remove old cables but not a dealbreaker.  Just have to lift the guard,
clean out the sealant and re-seal.

Remember, you only need to seal the hole in the deck.

Dennis C.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Joel Aronson via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> I would use something like lifeseal rather than butyl.
>
> Joel
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:30 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Here's a link to the exterior view of the pedestal guard feet.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxc37iifz7eo596/Pedestal%
>> 20Guard%20Feet.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> You can see the tape which is currently keeping out most of the water.  I
>> suspect the remaining water is getting in between the foot and the teak
>> deck.  I believe the leak currently in only on the starboard foot, as that
>> is the only one with a hole for wires.
>>
>> This is making its way below, dripping onto the head area of the stern
>> berth.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> What would be the best way to caulk/seal this, including the tube/foot
>> joint?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Bruce Whitmore
>>
>> (847) 404-5092 (mobile)
>> bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
>> *To:* cnc-list@cnc-list.com
>> *Cc:* Josh Muckley 
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 7:06 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Are you saying that the wires come through the pedestal guard tube?  And
>> exit through the deck via the gaurd tube foot?  A picture might help.
>>
>> Josh Muckley
>> S/V Sea Hawk
>> 1989 C&C 37+
>> Solomons, MD
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 5:02 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List <
>> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth
>> mattress foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming
>> from the starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate
>> the cockpit floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by
>> applying a small layer of aluminum duct tape at the point where the
>> stainless tubing penetrates the stainless foot. There is a hard plastic
>> spacer that fills the gap between the tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem
>> to be made of the proper material to be properly water resistant.
>>
>> So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself,
>> where it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is
>> finished with teak).
>>
>> What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get
>> is coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining
>> our new fabric!
>>
>> I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard,
>> and applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how
>> would I also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its
>> way between the tube and the foot?
>>
>> Thanks for your ideas!
>>
>> Bruce Whitmore
>>
>> Bruce Whitmore
>>
>> (847) 404-5092 (mobile)
>> bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --  https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>> --
> Joel
> 301 541 8551 <(301)%20541-8551>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Max-Prop service

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

Hey guys I fixed the subject line

I too have a Max-Prop and am fond of it though I have little experience
with alternatives.  I service mine every year by replacing the zinc and
greasing it per the manufacturer's instructions.

Josh Muckley
S/V Sea Hawk
1989 C&C 37+
Solomons, MD



On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 9:41 PM detroito91 via CnC-List 
wrote:

> Curious...how often do you service your maxprop?
> Jim schwartz
> 38lf
> SEA YA!
> washington nc
>
>  Original message 
> From: Chuck S via CnC-List 
> Date: 1/15/18 9:23 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> Cc: Chuck S , Ted Drossos 
> Subject: Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46
>
> I noticed 15 years ago that every sailboat in every boatyard that races
> has a folding or feathering  prop.  Half of the cruisers have em too.  I
> enjoy my two blade MaxProp.  I followed the dealer's advice and set it up
> myself to his specs.  The second year I made an adjustment to get a higher
> RPM and stick to those settings.  It works great.  I even marked the
> transmission and the coupling so I can line up the two blades so they are
> in prayer format and stay closed.  It's part of the fun.  You gotta love it.
>
>
>
> Chuck
> Resolute
> 1990 C&C 34R
> Broad Creek, Magothy River, Md
>
> On January 15, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ken Heaton via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> While it is true the original poster did not like their J Prop at all,
> they did not state why except to say they lost 2 knots over the fixed prop
> they had replaced.  That indicates to me they did not know how to properly
> adjust the pitch of their prop, which is odd, as it is so simple to do with
> a J Prop.  They may have had an unusual installation, perhaps a very large
> gear reduction so a very slow turning prop, I suppose.
>
> The original poster then went into a lengthy discussion as to why any type
> of folding or feathering propellor on a sail boat was a waste of money.  To
> each their own I suppose.
>
> Ken H.
>
>
> On 13 January 2018 at 21:57, Ted Drossos via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cnc-list-request 
> To: cnc-list 
> Sent: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pm
> Subject: Prop for 37/40+
>
> The quote from "Maine Sail" that Ken included in his post was part of a
> discussion on Sailnet. The original Sailnet poster was very unhappy with
> their J Prop. Here is a link to that discussion.
>
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/224938-pros-cons-folding-propellers-avoid-j-props.html
> There are variables that might make one prop someone's favorite while
> another user might have a completely different opinion. Maine Sail really
> disliked his Flex-O-Fold while many people including me loved it. His
> complaint was primarily vibration which he stated in another thread on
> Sailboatowners. The diameter of the prop shaft,  the distance the shaft
> extends past the strut and the prop to hull clearance could have
> contributed to his discontent. There are so many variables that it's
> difficult to say definitely which prop would work best on any given boat
> unless you are comparing identical boats.
>
> Ted Drossos
> C&C 110
> s/v Lady in Red
> Long Island, NY
> *
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each and
> every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use
> PayPal to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Joel Aronson via CnC-List]

I would use something like lifeseal rather than butyl.

Joel

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:30 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> Here's a link to the exterior view of the pedestal guard feet.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxc37iifz7eo596/Pedestal%20Guard%20Feet.jpg?dl=0
>
> You can see the tape which is currently keeping out most of the water.  I
> suspect the remaining water is getting in between the foot and the teak
> deck.  I believe the leak currently in only on the starboard foot, as that
> is the only one with a hole for wires.
>
> This is making its way below, dripping onto the head area of the stern
> berth.
>
> Make sense?
>
> What would be the best way to caulk/seal this, including the tube/foot
> joint?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bruce Whitmore
>
> (847) 404-5092 (mobile)
> bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
>
>
> --
> *From:* Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
> *To:* cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> *Cc:* Josh Muckley 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 7:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?
>
> Bruce,
>
> Are you saying that the wires come through the pedestal guard tube?  And
> exit through the deck via the gaurd tube foot?  A picture might help.
>
> Josh Muckley
> S/V Sea Hawk
> 1989 C&C 37+
> Solomons, MD
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 5:02 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth
> mattress foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming
> from the starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate
> the cockpit floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by
> applying a small layer of aluminum duct tape at the point where the
> stainless tubing penetrates the stainless foot. There is a hard plastic
> spacer that fills the gap between the tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem
> to be made of the proper material to be properly water resistant.
>
> So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself,
> where it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is
> finished with teak).
>
> What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get
> is coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining
> our new fabric!
>
> I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard,
> and applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how
> would I also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its
> way between the tube and the foot?
>
> Thanks for your ideas!
>
> Bruce Whitmore
>
> Bruce Whitmore
>
> (847) 404-5092 (mobile)
> bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --  https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> --
Joel
301 541 8551
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46

[detroito91 via CnC-List]

Curious...how often do you service your maxprop?Jim schwartz 38lfSEA 
YA!washington nc 
 Original message From: Chuck S via CnC-List 
 Date: 1/15/18  9:23 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: 
cnc-list@cnc-list.com Cc: Chuck S , Ted Drossos 
 Subject: Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46 
I noticed 15 years ago that every sailboat in every boatyard that races has a 
folding or feathering  prop.  Half of the cruisers have em too.  I enjoy my two 
blade MaxProp.  I followed the dealer's advice and set it up myself to his 
specs.  The second year I made an adjustment to get a higher RPM and stick to 
those settings.  It works great.  I even marked the transmission and the 
coupling so I can line up the two blades so they are in prayer format and stay 
closed.  It's part of the fun.  You gotta love it.

Chuck
Resolute
1990 C&C 34R
Broad Creek, Magothy River, MdOn January 15, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ken Heaton via 
CnC-List  wrote:

Hi Ted,
While it is true the original poster did not like their J Prop at all, they did 
not state why except to say they lost 2 knots over the fixed prop they had 
replaced.  That indicates to me they did not know how to properly adjust the 
pitch of their prop, which is odd, as it is so simple to do with a J Prop.  
They may have had an unusual installation, perhaps a very large gear reduction 
so a very slow turning prop, I suppose.
The original poster then went into a lengthy discussion as to why any type of 
folding or feathering propellor on a sail boat was a waste of money.  To each 
their own I suppose.
Ken H.

On 13 January 2018 at 21:57, Ted Drossos via CnC-List  
wrote:

 
 
-Original Message-
 From: cnc-list-request 
 To: cnc-list 
 Sent: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pm
 Subject: Prop for 37/40+
The quote from "Maine Sail" that Ken included in his post was part of a 
discussion on Sailnet. The original Sailnet poster was very unhappy with their 
J Prop. Here is a link to that discussion. 
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/224938-pros-cons-folding-propellers-avoid-j-props.htmlThere
 are variables that might make one prop someone's favorite while another user 
might have a completely different opinion. Maine Sail really disliked his 
Flex-O-Fold while many people including me loved it. His complaint was 
primarily vibration which he stated in another thread on Sailboatowners. The 
diameter of the prop shaft,  the distance the shaft extends past the strut and 
the prop to hull clearance could have contributed to his discontent. There are 
so many variables that it's difficult to say definitely which prop would work 
best on any given boat unless you are comparing identical boats.
 
 Ted DrossosC&C 110s/v Lady in RedLong Island, NY
 *

___
 
 Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
 
 

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List]

Hi Josh,
Here's a link to the exterior view of the pedestal guard feet.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxc37iifz7eo596/Pedestal%20Guard%20Feet.jpg?dl=0
You can see the tape which is currently keeping out most of the water.  I 
suspect the remaining water is getting in between the foot and the teak deck.  
I believe the leak currently in only on the starboard foot, as that is the only 
one with a hole for wires.    

This is making its way below, dripping onto the head area of the stern berth.  

Make sense?
What would be the best way to caulk/seal this, including the tube/foot joint?
Thanks!  
 Bruce Whitmore

(847) 404-5092 (mobile)
bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net


  From: Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
 To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com 
Cc: Josh Muckley 
 Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 7:06 PM
 Subject: Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?
   
Bruce, 
Are you saying that the wires come through the pedestal guard tube?  And exit 
through the deck via the gaurd tube foot?  A picture might help.
Josh MuckleyS/V Sea Hawk1989 C&C 37+Solomons, MD

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 5:02 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List 
 wrote:

Hello all,
We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth mattress 
foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming from the 
starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate the cockpit 
floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by applying a small layer 
of aluminum duct tape at the point where the stainless tubing penetrates the 
stainless foot. There is a hard plastic spacer that fills the gap between the 
tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem to be made of the proper material to be 
properly water resistant.
So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself, where 
it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is finished with 
teak).  

What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get is 
coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining our new 
fabric!  

I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard, and 
applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how would I 
also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its way between 
the tube and the foot?
Thanks for your ideas!
Bruce Whitmore
 Bruce Whitmore

(847) 404-5092 (mobile)
bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray


___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --  https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



   ___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46

[Chuck S via CnC-List]

I noticed 15 years ago that every sailboat in every boatyard that races has a 
folding or feathering  prop.  Half of the cruisers have em too.  I enjoy my two 
blade MaxProp.  I followed the dealer's advice and set it up myself to his 
specs.  The second year I made an adjustment to get a higher RPM and stick to 
those settings.  It works great.  I even marked the transmission and the 
coupling so I can line up the two blades so they are in prayer format and stay 
closed.  It's part of the fun.  You gotta love it.



Chuck
Resolute
1990 C&C 34R
Broad Creek, Magothy River, Md

> On January 15, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ken Heaton via CnC-List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> While it is true the original poster did not like their J Prop at all, 
> they did not state why except to say they lost 2 knots over the fixed prop 
> they had replaced.  That indicates to me they did not know how to properly 
> adjust the pitch of their prop, which is odd, as it is so simple to do with a 
> J Prop.  They may have had an unusual installation, perhaps a very large gear 
> reduction so a very slow turning prop, I suppose.
> 
> The original poster then went into a lengthy discussion as to why any 
> type of folding or feathering propellor on a sail boat was a waste of money.  
> To each their own I suppose.
> 
> Ken H.
> 
> 
> On 13 January 2018 at 21:57, Ted Drossos via CnC-List 
> mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: cnc-list-request  > mailto:cnc-list-requ...@cnc-list.com >
> > To: cnc-list mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com >
> > Sent: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pm
> > Subject: Prop for 37/40+
> > 
> > The quote from "Maine Sail" that Ken included in his post was part 
> > of a discussion on Sailnet. The original Sailnet poster was very unhappy 
> > with their J Prop. Here is a link to that discussion. 
> > 
> > http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/224938-pros-cons-folding-propellers-avoid-j-props.html
> >  
> > http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/224938-pros-cons-folding-propellers-avoid-j-props.html
> > There are variables that might make one prop someone's favorite 
> > while another user might have a completely different opinion. Maine Sail 
> > really disliked his Flex-O-Fold while many people including me loved it. 
> > His complaint was primarily vibration which he stated in another thread on 
> > Sailboatowners. The diameter of the prop shaft,  the distance the shaft 
> > extends past the strut and the prop to hull clearance could have 
> > contributed to his discontent. There are so many variables that it's 
> > difficult to say definitely which prop would work best on any given boat 
> > unless you are comparing identical boats.
> > 
> > Ted Drossos
> > C&C 110
> > s/v Lady in Red
> > Long Island, NY
> > *
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  
> > Each and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list 
> > - use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray 
> > https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> ___
> 
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each 
> and every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use 
> PayPal to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
> 
> 
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List CnC-List Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46

[Ken Heaton via CnC-List]

Hi Ted,

While it is true the original poster did not like their J Prop at all, they
did not state why except to say they lost 2 knots over the fixed prop they
had replaced.  That indicates to me they did not know how to properly
adjust the pitch of their prop, which is odd, as it is so simple to do with
a J Prop.  They may have had an unusual installation, perhaps a very large
gear reduction so a very slow turning prop, I suppose.

The original poster then went into a lengthy discussion as to why any type
of folding or feathering propellor on a sail boat was a waste of money.  To
each their own I suppose.

Ken H.


On 13 January 2018 at 21:57, Ted Drossos via CnC-List  wrote:

>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cnc-list-request 
> To: cnc-list 
> Sent: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pm
> Subject: Prop for 37/40+
>
> The quote from "Maine Sail" that Ken included in his post was part of a
> discussion on Sailnet. The original Sailnet poster was very unhappy with
> their J Prop. Here is a link to that discussion.
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-rel
> ated/224938-pros-cons-folding-propellers-avoid-j-props.html
> There are variables that might make one prop someone's favorite while
> another user might have a completely different opinion. Maine Sail really
> disliked his Flex-O-Fold while many people including me loved it. His
> complaint was primarily vibration which he stated in another thread on
> Sailboatowners. The diameter of the prop shaft,  the distance the shaft
> extends past the strut and the prop to hull clearance could have
> contributed to his discontent. There are so many variables that it's
> difficult to say definitely which prop would work best on any given boat
> unless you are comparing identical boats.
>
> Ted Drossos
> C&C 110
> s/v Lady in Red
> Long Island, NY
> *
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List FASTRACK: AN EPIC VOYAGE

[Ken Heaton via CnC-List]

Hi Bill,

Years ago I read in a Sailing Anarchy thread there was a C&C named Fastrack
at the RCYC (i.e. Royal Canadian Yacht Club in Toronto, Ontario).  I always
assumed that was just a typo as the C&C 37R Fastrack I was aware of was
based out of the RVYC (Royal
Vancouver Yacht Club).

There are (or were in recent years) a few C&C 37R and 37+, etc. in the
Toronto area, including Clockwork, Crazy Legs (formerly Flying Colors,
Illegal Smile), Seyworthy II, Main Course (formerly Big Chill), Princess,
Rampage, VikingBlod (formerly Deco Dance).

Ken H.


On 14 January 2018 at 17:32, Bill Coleman via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Isn’t there a C&C named Fastrack in Toronto?
>
>
>
> Bill Coleman
>
> C&C 39 Erie, PA[image: animated_favicon1]
>
>
>
> *From:* CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken
> Heaton via CnC-List
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 13, 2018 1:13 PM
> *To:* cnc-list
> *Cc:* Ken Heaton
> *Subject:* Re: Stus-List FASTRACK: AN EPIC VOYAGE
>
>
>
> Fastrack has had a number of owners over the years, her present owner is
> Ron Wood, since January of 2011.
>
>
>
> I swapped emails with Ron just a few days ago to show him this article.  I
> think Ron is on the C&C Mailing List.
>
>
>
> Ken H.
>
>
>
> On 13 January 2018 at 09:31, bushmark4--- via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
> Ken, that's fascinating stuff! Makes you want to find out where the boat
> is now and how she is faring...!  Also, what they added the bustle, how
> that works, etcThank's for passing this along
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> s/v Bushmark4; 1985 C&C 37 CB; Ohio River, Mile 600; On the Hard for Winter
> Richard N. Bush
> 2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite Nine
> Louisville, Kentucky 40220-1462
> 502-584-7255 <(502)%20584-7255>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Heaton via CnC-List 
> To: cnc-list ; cncphotoalbum <
> cncphotoal...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ken Heaton 
> Sent: Sat, Jan 13, 2018 7:29 am
> Subject: Stus-List FASTRACK: AN EPIC VOYAGE
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> The first C&C 37/40 ever produced was a 37R owned by David Ball.
> Christened "Fastrack", she lived up to her name, doing very well in her
> first season of racing in 1988.  Starting out on the Atlantic Coast, taking
> a third in class in June 1988's Audi-Yachting Block Island Race Week, then
> moving to the Pacific Coast and the 1988 Whidbey Island Race Week where a
> series of three first place finishes had the fleet footed Fastrack
> capturing 1st in Division A and earning a second overall for the week long
> regatta.
>
>
>
> For your reading pleasure this morning, I found the following story in the
> year 2000 Victoria to Maui International YachtRace (Vic-Maui) Program,
> Pages 10 & 11, online.
>
>
>
> The Vic-Maui is the longest offshore sailing race off the west coast of
> North America.  It is the pinnacle of Pacific Northwest ocean racing. First
> contested in 1968, the Vic-Maui runs in even-numbered years, starting in
> June or July off Victoria, British Columbia, Canada and finishing near
> Lahaina, Maui, United States, a distance of approximately 2,308 nautical
> miles (4,274 km). Recent race winners completed the trip in a little over
> nine days, with an average speed of over 10 knots (19 km/h).
>
>
>
> To read the story FASTRACK: AN EPIC VOYAGE from the 200 Vic-Maui, click
> the link below:
>
>
>
> *http://c-c-37-40.blogspot.ca/2018/01/fastrack-epic-voyage.html
> *
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin
> S/V Salazar - Can 54955
> C&C 37/40 XL - Hull # 67
> Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia
>
>
>
> https://c-c-37-40.blogspot.ca/p/salazar.html
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. Each and
> every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support the list - use
> PayPal to send contribution -- https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

Bruce,

Are you saying that the wires come through the pedestal guard tube?  And
exit through the deck via the gaurd tube foot?  A picture might help.

Josh Muckley
S/V Sea Hawk
1989 C&C 37+
Solomons, MD


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 5:02 PM Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth
> mattress foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming
> from the starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate
> the cockpit floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by
> applying a small layer of aluminum duct tape at the point where the
> stainless tubing penetrates the stainless foot. There is a hard plastic
> spacer that fills the gap between the tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem
> to be made of the proper material to be properly water resistant.
>
> So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself,
> where it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is
> finished with teak).
>
> What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get
> is coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining
> our new fabric!
>
> I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard,
> and applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how
> would I also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its
> way between the tube and the foot?
>
> Thanks for your ideas!
>
> Bruce Whitmore
>
> Bruce Whitmore
>
> (847) 404-5092 (mobile)
> bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Stus-List Stopping leaks through pedestal guard feet?

[Bruce Whitmore via CnC-List]

Hello all,
We have a 1994 C&C 37/40+, and we are replacing the stern and v berth mattress 
foam and fabric.  I have noticed a very small leak which is coming from the 
starboard pedestal guard foot, where the bolts and wires penetrate the cockpit 
floor.  We have stopped the vast majority of the leak by applying a small layer 
of aluminum duct tape at the point where the stainless tubing penetrates the 
stainless foot. There is a hard plastic spacer that fills the gap between the 
tube & the foot, but it doesn't seem to be made of the proper material to be 
properly water resistant.
So, I expect this leaves us with water coming in under the foot itself, where 
it is bolted through the floor of the cockpit itself (which is finished with 
teak).  

What would you suggest as to the best way to seal this?  The leak we get is 
coming down over the stern berth, and I sure don't want leaks staining our new 
fabric!  

I am thinking about loosening the feet & lifting up the pedestal guard, and 
applying butyl rubber to the bottom.  If that works, great.  But, how would I 
also more permanently stop water ingress due to water finding its way between 
the tube and the foot?
Thanks for your ideas!
Bruce Whitmore
 Bruce Whitmore

(847) 404-5092 (mobile)
bwhitm...@sbcglobal.net
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[schiller via CnC-List]

Josh,

Depends on the material used (i.e., Snap-on vs. Harbor Freight). 
Assuming the extension is made from a quality alloy steel such as 4130, 
the shear stress at 350 ft-lb would be about 32 ksi (help stamp out 
metric in my lifetime).  This assumes the extension diameter is 7/8 so 
that they can swag the 3/4 square.  4130 has a tensile yield of 63,100 
psi.  Assuming that the shear yield is 2/3 of the tensile, the extension 
would be good for 42 ksi.


Put the torque on it and see.  I have broken the square drive off of a 
1/2 Harbor Freight Extension.  No harm done.  Just pop the square drive 
out and throw it all away.  That's why we buy disposable tools.


Neil Schiller
1983 C&C 35-3, #028
"Grace"

On 1/15/2018 1:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List wrote:
I thought about that too Bill, but a 3/4 output drive is going to be 
limited to the given socket and quality there of.  That's why I assume 
the input is always smaller than the output (1/2 to 3/4) or (3/4 to 1).


Anybody wanna venture what the typical torque limits are on a 3/4 
drive extension?  It will probably be dependent on hardness, impact or 
not.


Josh

On Jan 15, 2018 1:04 PM, "William Walker via CnC-List" 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:


Could it be that manufacturer of multiplier fears that the
extension will not be of sufficient quality/strength to transfer
the torque developed by multiplier?
Bill Walker


Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions. 
Each and every one is greatly appreciated. If you want to support
the list - use PayPal to send contribution --
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray 




___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Ken Heaton via CnC-List]

"Anybody wanna venture what the typical torque limits are on a 3/4 drive
extension?"

I don't know that for sure but the micrometer adjustable torque wrench I
borrow from the Heavy Equipment Mechanics is 3/4" drive and it goes a lot
higher than 600lbs. torque.

Ken H.

On Monday, 15 January 2018, Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
wrote:
> I thought about that too Bill, but a 3/4 output drive is going to be
limited to the given socket and quality there of.  That's why I assume the
input is always smaller than the output (1/2 to 3/4) or (3/4 to 1).
> Anybody wanna venture what the typical torque limits are on a 3/4 drive
extension?  It will probably be dependent on hardness, impact or not.
>
> Josh
> On Jan 15, 2018 1:04 PM, "William Walker via CnC-List" <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>
>> Could it be that manufacturer of multiplier fears that the extension
will not be of sufficient quality/strength to transfer the torque developed
by multiplier?
>> Bill Walker
>>
>>
>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

I thought about that too Bill, but a 3/4 output drive is going to be
limited to the given socket and quality there of.  That's why I assume the
input is always smaller than the output (1/2 to 3/4) or (3/4 to 1).

Anybody wanna venture what the typical torque limits are on a 3/4 drive
extension?  It will probably be dependent on hardness, impact or not.

Josh

On Jan 15, 2018 1:04 PM, "William Walker via CnC-List" <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Could it be that manufacturer of multiplier fears that the extension will
> not be of sufficient quality/strength to transfer the torque developed by
> multiplier?
> Bill Walker
>
>
> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[William Walker via CnC-List]

Could it be that manufacturer of multiplier fears that the extension will not 
be of sufficient quality/strength to transfer the torque developed by 
multiplier?
Bill Walker 




Sent from AOL Mobile Mail___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[schiller via CnC-List]

Josh,

I agree with your assessment of why they recommend against extensions.  
I used to use a 4:1 multiplier to torque fuse bolts on bomb bodies (650 
foot-lb).  It is a true challenge to support the multiplier without an 
extension.  With an extension, I strongly agree with using a support.  
The other challenge that was that the extension breaker bar was really 
hard on the hands to hold.  If you find the multiplier hard to resist, 
putting the multiplier in the bilge might be easier.  You might want to 
be prepared for either option.


Neil Schiller
1983 C&C 35-3, #028
"Grace"
Yes, I was a Rocket Scientist

On 1/15/2018 9:51 AM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List wrote:
Dennis, I'm totally in agreement with your thinking and think you are 
envisioning it correctly but I just wanted to check with the 
collective wisdom.  I wish the multiplier had expounded on their "do 
not use extensions" warning.


Josh

On Jan 15, 2018 9:44 AM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:


Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The
configuration I see is the socket on the nut, an extension of X
inches held by a bushing several inches above the socket, then the
multiplier on top of the extension.

I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension
is held firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is
1 inch, 12 inches or 24 inches from the socket if the extension is
held where it can't tilt or misalign?  See what I'm thinking?

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:

That's a pretty good idea Dennis. So I take it that you prefer
getting the multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?

Josh

On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List"
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:

Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and
make a bushing for the hole in the sole to steady the top
of the extension and keep it aligned.  Torque away!

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:

So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a
deep hole and is constrained to a narrow channel.  The
immediate thought is to simply use an extension. 
Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically
states to not use an extension... I assume on the
output shaft.  I also assume that the reason for this
is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying
such extreme torque.

So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier
in the bottom of the hole while using an extension on
the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply the required
torque? Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of
the hull to attempt to prevent excessive point loads
and crushing.

Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive,
extension between the socket and the multiplier to get
the multiplier above the hole?  This would allow using
the handle on the multiplier.

Here are some pictures:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9nwdqVoR4CYTCy



Thanks,
Josh Muckley
S/V Sea Hawk
1989 C&C 37+
Solomons, MD



On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

It looks like I should have checked my standard
nut/bolt sizes.  See the attached chart.

Josh




On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley"
mailto:muckl...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was
1-7/8 which seemed to fit the #5 bolt and it
was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.

#1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2
socket.

Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
     Nut   stud
1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)  1 (25mm)
2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
*3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
*6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
7 - 1 1/2 (38mm

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

Thanks Rick,

Sounds like a similar concern to having the extension shaft come out of
alignment.

Still a tough choice between the lesser of two evils.  No reaction bar,
down in the hole to avoid drive extensions.  Or use extensions to get the
assembly out of the hole and allow using a reaction bar.

I think I can control the alignment of the extension shaft better than the
force being applied to the bilge sump without a reaction bar.

Josh



On Jan 15, 2018 12:03 PM, "Rick Taillieu via CnC-List" <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

This is the best explanation I could find.



Do not use output drive extensions. Increased deflections,

caused by the added length could force the socket off the

nut, or break the extension or socket.



Some other sites state to use a single or double sided reaction bar if you
have to use an extension on the output.





Rick Taillieu

Boatless

Leamington, Ontario



*From:* CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh
Muckley via CnC-List
*Sent:* January-15-18 09:51

*To:* C&C List
*Cc:* Josh Muckley
*Subject:* Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque



Dennis, I'm totally in agreement with your thinking and think you are
envisioning it correctly but I just wanted to check with the collective
wisdom.  I wish the multiplier had expounded on their "do not use
extensions" warning.



Josh



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use
PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Rick Taillieu via CnC-List]

This is the best explanation I could find.

 

Do not use output drive extensions. Increased deflections, 

caused by the added length could force the socket off the 

nut, or break the extension or socket.

 

Some other sites state to use a single or double sided reaction bar if you have 
to use an extension on the output.

 

 

Rick Taillieu

Boatless 

Leamington, Ontario

 

From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Josh Muckley 
via CnC-List
Sent: January-15-18 09:51
To: C&C List
Cc: Josh Muckley
Subject: Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

 

Dennis, I'm totally in agreement with your thinking and think you are 
envisioning it correctly but I just wanted to check with the collective wisdom. 
 I wish the multiplier had expounded on their "do not use extensions" warning.

 

Josh

 

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Dennis C. via CnC-List]

Josh,

A quick Google search for "using extension with torque multiplier" shows
the most common use of "extension" as an extension of the handle of a
torque wrench, not an extension between the multiplier and socket.

Most of the hits were how to calculate the added torque from extending the
handle.

Dennis C.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Dennis, I'm totally in agreement with your thinking and think you are
> envisioning it correctly but I just wanted to check with the collective
> wisdom.  I wish the multiplier had expounded on their "do not use
> extensions" warning.
>
> Josh
>
> On Jan 15, 2018 9:44 AM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
> wrote:
>
> Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The configuration I
> see is the socket on the nut, an extension of X inches held by a bushing
> several inches above the socket, then the multiplier on top of the
> extension.
>
> I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension is held
> firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is 1 inch, 12
> inches or 24 inches from the socket if the extension is held where it can't
> tilt or misalign?  See what I'm thinking?
>
> Dennis C.
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a pretty good idea Dennis.  So I take it that you prefer getting
>> the multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and make a bushing
>>> for the hole in the sole to steady the top of the extension and keep it
>>> aligned.  Torque away!
>>>
>>> Dennis C.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
>>> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>>
 So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a deep hole and is
 constrained to a narrow channel.  The immediate thought is to simply use an
 extension.  Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically states to
 not use an extension... I assume on the output shaft.  I also assume that
 the reason for this is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying
 such extreme torque.

 So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier in the bottom of
 the hole while using an extension on the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply
 the required torque?  Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of the hull
 to attempt to prevent excessive point loads and crushing.

 Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive, extension between the
 socket and the multiplier to get the multiplier above the hole?  This would
 allow using the handle on the multiplier.

 Here are some pictures:
 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9n
 wdqVoR4CYTCy

 Thanks,
 Josh Muckley
 S/V Sea Hawk
 1989 C&C 37+
 Solomons, MD



 On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com wrote:

> It looks like I should have checked my standard nut/bolt sizes.  See
> the attached chart.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley"  wrote:
>
> The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was 1-7/8 which seemed to fit
> the #5 bolt and it was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.
>
> #1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2 socket.
>
> Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
> Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
>  Nut   stud
> 1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
> 2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
> *3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
> 4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
> 5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
> *6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
> 7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
> *8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)1/2 (13mm)
>
> Josh
>
>
 ___

 Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
 and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
 use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to supp

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

Yeah Johh, my thinking is that that is the biggest concern anytime an
extension or adapter is being used.  The further off axis the head of the
wrench the more inaccurate the torque being applied.  A more purposeful
statement to that effect in the multiplier instructions would have been
nice.  With a multiplier any introduced error is amplified... In this case
times 3.

Josh


On Jan 15, 2018 9:52 AM, "John Irvin via CnC-List" 
wrote:

On the 27- mik III I just make sure the extension stays vertical. Not
dealing with that much torque.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Dennis C. via CnC-List 
wrote:

Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The configuration I
see is the socket on the nut, an extension of X inches held by a bushing
several inches above the socket, then the multiplier on top of the
extension.

I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension is held
firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is 1 inch, 12
inches or 24 inches from the socket if the extension is held where it can't
tilt or misalign?  See what I'm thinking?

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> That's a pretty good idea Dennis.  So I take it that you prefer getting
> the multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?
>
> Josh
>
> On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
> wrote:
>
>> Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and make a bushing
>> for the hole in the sole to steady the top of the extension and keep it
>> aligned.  Torque away!
>>
>> Dennis C.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
>> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a deep hole and is
>>> constrained to a narrow channel.  The immediate thought is to simply use an
>>> extension.  Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically states to
>>> not use an extension... I assume on the output shaft.  I also assume that
>>> the reason for this is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying
>>> such extreme torque.
>>>
>>> So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier in the bottom of
>>> the hole while using an extension on the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply
>>> the required torque?  Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of the hull
>>> to attempt to prevent excessive point loads and crushing.
>>>
>>> Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive, extension between the
>>> socket and the multiplier to get the multiplier above the hole?  This would
>>> allow using the handle on the multiplier.
>>>
>>> Here are some pictures:
>>> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9nwdqVoR4CYTCy
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh Muckley
>>> S/V Sea Hawk
>>> 1989 C&C 37+
>>> Solomons, MD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 It looks like I should have checked my standard nut/bolt sizes.  See
 the attached chart.

 Josh




 On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley"  wrote:

 The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was 1-7/8 which seemed to fit the
 #5 bolt and it was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.

 #1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2 socket.

 Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
 Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
  Nut   stud
 1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 *3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
 *6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 *8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)1/2 (13mm)

 Josh


>>> ___
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use
PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray


___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and
every one is greatly ap

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[John Irvin via CnC-List]

On the 27- mik III I just make sure the extension stays vertical. Not dealing 
with that much torque.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Dennis C. via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:

Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The configuration I see is 
the socket on the nut, an extension of X inches held by a bushing several 
inches above the socket, then the multiplier on top of the extension.

I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension is held 
firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is 1 inch, 12 inches or 
24 inches from the socket if the extension is held where it can't tilt or 
misalign?  See what I'm thinking?

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
That's a pretty good idea Dennis.  So I take it that you prefer getting the 
multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?

Josh

On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and make a bushing for the 
hole in the sole to steady the top of the extension and keep it aligned.  
Torque away!

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a deep hole and is 
constrained to a narrow channel.  The immediate thought is to simply use an 
extension.  Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically states to not 
use an extension... I assume on the output shaft.  I also assume that the 
reason for this is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying such 
extreme torque.

So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier in the bottom of the hole 
while using an extension on the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply the required 
torque?  Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of the hull to attempt to 
prevent excessive point loads and crushing.

Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive, extension between the socket and 
the multiplier to get the multiplier above the hole?  This would allow using 
the handle on the multiplier.

Here are some pictures:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9nwdqVoR4CYTCy

Thanks,
Josh Muckley
S/V Sea Hawk
1989 C&C 37+
Solomons, MD



On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like I should have checked my standard nut/bolt sizes.  See the 
attached chart.

Josh




On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley" 
mailto:muckl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was 1-7/8 which seemed to fit the #5 bolt 
and it was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.

#1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2 socket.

Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
 Nut   stud
1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
*3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
*6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
*8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)1/2 (13mm)

Josh

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray




___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Josh Muckley via CnC-List]

Dennis, I'm totally in agreement with your thinking and think you are
envisioning it correctly but I just wanted to check with the collective
wisdom.  I wish the multiplier had expounded on their "do not use
extensions" warning.

Josh

On Jan 15, 2018 9:44 AM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
wrote:

Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The configuration I
see is the socket on the nut, an extension of X inches held by a bushing
several inches above the socket, then the multiplier on top of the
extension.

I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension is held
firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is 1 inch, 12
inches or 24 inches from the socket if the extension is held where it can't
tilt or misalign?  See what I'm thinking?

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> That's a pretty good idea Dennis.  So I take it that you prefer getting
> the multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?
>
> Josh
>
> On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
> wrote:
>
>> Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and make a bushing
>> for the hole in the sole to steady the top of the extension and keep it
>> aligned.  Torque away!
>>
>> Dennis C.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
>> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a deep hole and is
>>> constrained to a narrow channel.  The immediate thought is to simply use an
>>> extension.  Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically states to
>>> not use an extension... I assume on the output shaft.  I also assume that
>>> the reason for this is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying
>>> such extreme torque.
>>>
>>> So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier in the bottom of
>>> the hole while using an extension on the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply
>>> the required torque?  Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of the hull
>>> to attempt to prevent excessive point loads and crushing.
>>>
>>> Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive, extension between the
>>> socket and the multiplier to get the multiplier above the hole?  This would
>>> allow using the handle on the multiplier.
>>>
>>> Here are some pictures:
>>> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9nwdqVoR4CYTCy
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh Muckley
>>> S/V Sea Hawk
>>> 1989 C&C 37+
>>> Solomons, MD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 It looks like I should have checked my standard nut/bolt sizes.  See
 the attached chart.

 Josh




 On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley"  wrote:

 The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was 1-7/8 which seemed to fit the
 #5 bolt and it was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.

 #1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2 socket.

 Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
 Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
  Nut   stud
 1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 *3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
 *6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 *8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)1/2 (13mm)

 Josh


>>> ___
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use
PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List Keel bolt torque

[Dennis C. via CnC-List]

Hopefully, I'm visualizing the situation correctly.  The configuration I
see is the socket on the nut, an extension of X inches held by a bushing
several inches above the socket, then the multiplier on top of the
extension.

I just don't see a difference for the multiplier if the extension is held
firmly.  What difference does it make if the multiplier is 1 inch, 12
inches or 24 inches from the socket if the extension is held where it can't
tilt or misalign?  See what I'm thinking?

Dennis C.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> That's a pretty good idea Dennis.  So I take it that you prefer getting
> the multiplier out of the hole and using the handle?
>
> Josh
>
> On Jan 14, 2018 8:16 PM, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
> wrote:
>
>> Get some PVC pipe, PVC fittings or some wood pieces and make a bushing
>> for the hole in the sole to steady the top of the extension and keep it
>> aligned.  Torque away!
>>
>> Dennis C.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Josh Muckley via CnC-List <
>> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So now I have a new problem.  Keel bolt #4 is down a deep hole and is
>>> constrained to a narrow channel.  The immediate thought is to simply use an
>>> extension.  Problem is that the torque multiplier specifically states to
>>> not use an extension... I assume on the output shaft.  I also assume that
>>> the reason for this is to ensure alignment stays perfect while applying
>>> such extreme torque.
>>>
>>> So, is it better to brace the handle-less multiplier in the bottom of
>>> the hole while using an extension on the 1/2" drive input shaft to apply
>>> the required torque?  Without a handle I'll shore up the edges of the hull
>>> to attempt to prevent excessive point loads and crushing.
>>>
>>> Or is it better to use a 13" long, 3/4" drive, extension between the
>>> socket and the multiplier to get the multiplier above the hole?  This would
>>> allow using the handle on the multiplier.
>>>
>>> Here are some pictures:
>>> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1G3HVN_jj0PYa0e5Otk9nwdqVoR4CYTCy
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh Muckley
>>> S/V Sea Hawk
>>> 1989 C&C 37+
>>> Solomons, MD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2018 10:35 PM, muckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 It looks like I should have checked my standard nut/bolt sizes.  See
 the attached chart.

 Josh




 On Jan 13, 2018 7:54 PM, "Josh Muckley"  wrote:

 The only thing I had close to 1-13/16 was 1-7/8 which seemed to fit the
 #5 bolt and it was only best measured as a 1-1/4" stud.

 #1 and #7 match, measuring 1" and fit 1-1/2 socket.

 Here's the latest chart (* denotes unchecked)
 Keel bolts (fwd to aft):
  Nut   stud
 1 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 2 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 *3 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 4 - 2 3/16 (56mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 5 - 1 7/8 (47.5mm)1 1/4 (32mm)
 *6 - 2 1/4 (57mm)  1 1/2 (38mm)
 7 - 1 1/2 (38mm)1 (25mm)
 *8 - 3/4 (19.5mm)1/2 (13mm)

 Josh


>>> ___
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray