Crippled Horse

The End

2012-03-01T11:23:00.000-09:00

In part due to a heavy interface and the need to be online while editing, I'm leaving Blogger.com. I will not take down the content, though. Any links which you have made or might make in the future will remain valid. I simply will no longer post updates here.

The new blog runs on BlazeBlogger, a set of perl scripts that run on my local computer to create pages and posts out of static HTML (sorry, no commenting) which I can then upload to my webhost. There are several advantages to this arrangement for me which I won't delve into here.

The new blog will have, also, a new URL at blog.paraplegicracehorse.net. If you subscribe to updates from this site, there is a page at the new site with new subscription links for you.

Self-Rescue Dinghy Pondering

2012-01-04T18:42:00.000-09:00

I've spent a good part of my day, today, searching out dinghy/tender/lifeboat options. Why? Because I can; and because it is something which interests me, and because it is of interest to the boating public at large. There is a large amount of discussion amongst cruisers about dinghies, somewhat less about self-rescue boats/rafts and less, still, about dinghies AS self-rescue boats.

Common threads on dinghies include how to secure them to the boat both for theft-prevention and storage during passage, launch and retrieval, and desired feature set (capacity, weight, propulsion methods). Of course, there is the never-ending debate of hard-shell vs. rubber inflatable (RIB). The general consensus is that it should carry four to six persons, be easily launched and retrieved, able to be rowed or sailed, able to mount an outboard, easily repaired when punctured, low-cost and rugged. That's a pretty demanding list on its own. To my thinking, all of these criteria are only met by a hard-shell dinghy (ever try to row a RIB? how about sail one?). Yet, the RIB is far and away the most popular choice, today.

The discussion of self-rescue craft, on the other hand, centers around crew capacity, survival stocks and tools (signaling, food, water, etc), meeting SOLAS and/or USCG requirements, self-inflation reliability, complaints about inspection expenses and, sometimes, storage location and methods. Mostly, it seems, there are gripes about the expense of repacking them after inspection. Almost never is there a mention of ability to move and navigate under it's own, or the crew's, power.

In the ages of sail, steam and early days of diesel, your dinghy/tender was also your lifeboat. There was no expectation of rescue by a third party (no long-range signaling devices such as radio, EPIRBs and SARTs; and very few vessels fast enough to reach you in a matter of hours) unless you were really close to a populated coastline with a lifesaving corps (fishing ports, naval facilities). You dinghy had to be weatherly, stable, have capacity for food and water stores and able to be rowed or sailed for a long distance. In other words, your dinghy/tender had to allow you to self-rescue.

Apparently, there have been three designers who think these old-fashioned self-rescue ideas are good and still valid, even today. Steven Callahan (survivor of a 76 day ordeal in a life raft - read his book Adrift: Seventy-six Days Lost at Sea) (I earn a few pennies if you buy from this link.) has designed and prototyped what he calls the FRIB. It is not yet available (if ever) and there are no construction plans for the DIY boater. There's the Portland Pudgy, which is commercially available, now, but has no construction plans for the DIY boater. John Holtrop sells DIY plans for his Wave Dancer Life Dory. All three are hard-shell craft. All three are able to be driven by oar or sail, thereby making possible (if not necessarily likely) rescue without additional aid. FRIB and Portland Pudgy include built-in floatation compartments and are, theoretically, unsinkable. Wave Dancer could be built with floatation. Any of the three can attach to a drogue to keep it lined up to wind and waves, vastly increasing their stability at sea, especially in poor weather.

FRIB is not available. Portland Pudgy is expensive and considered too heavy for use as a small tender by many. Pudgy meets SOLAS/USCG regs as a four-person rescue boat. FRIB will likely meet those regs as a three-to-four person rescue boat. Wave Dancer is unlikely to ever meet those regs because of inspection and other issues; in other words - no agency is likely to certify it to meet safety gear requirements, no matter how well built it is.

Price. Wave Dancer can be built for less than US$600. FRIB is unavailable. Pudgies start at US$2500 (bare boat, no safety stuff or sails). A typical eight-to-ten foot hard shell dinghy costs US$1000 (+/- 200) and about that much again for a sail package (if available). Some have inflatable tubes available allowing it be configured for use as a lifeboat, in theory. Four-person self-inflating, SOLAS/USCG approved, life rafts start at about US$1000, pluse storage valise, plus annual expenses of recertification and repacking. Four-person RIBs start at near US$1000 and very few have accessories for turning them into capable row/sail craft, let alone adding other self-rescue capabilities and safety features.

The search and rescue (SAR) assets of the developed world are spread pretty thin. Unless the vessel is within a few hundred miles of a SAR base, the crew are likely to be waiting days for rescue. In less developed areas, there may be no SAR assets in place at all. Crews are certainly on their own in mid-ocean. Steven Callahan was never more than 200 miles out of the shipping lanes, but he could not maneuver his life raft into them where he had some hope of recovery. If he had had a sail, he could have self-evacuated to a nearby island in about a week; somewhat longer if he'd had oars and a moderately efficient hull shape. Instead, he spent 76 days adrift and completely at the whim of wind and wave.

There are plenty of large, ridgid hull self-rescue craft, suitable for big ships with big crews. It is a wonder why the commercial fishing and yachting worlds have not demanded similar craft. Okay, Steven Callahan didn't have an EPIRB or SAR transponder; nor even a hand-held VHF radio. Certainly these would have decreased the time he awaited rescue. These electronic wonders are fantastic but electronics fail, batteries run down and even with these toys, tides and wind could move you out of rescue range.

It's past time for some competition in the self-rescue craft suitable for fishing boats and yachts market. The rules are here: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/boatrb.asp. I'm both not qualified and without the resources to do it myself. Small-boat designers, that means you. Get on it.

A new home, work and wood

2011-12-28T14:40:00.000-09:00

First, I moved back to Alaska. What can I say? I like it here and there are opportunities for me that aren't readily available in Washington. Unfortunately, I got back about a week too late to get one of the jobs I had my heart set on while I try for something in the oil field at Prudhoe Bay. Yes, this means I'm still unemployed and still sleeping on the charity couch. The local dry dock is expecting a big job in January and maybe I can get on as a laborer or something, then. Failing that, it looks as though I'll end up back in the taxi driver's seat or working at the gas station for a subsistence - at best - level wage.

I'd like to get myself a few beehives again in the spring. I'd also like to build a sail trainer boat. However, until I get a place to live on a less ephemeral basis, and some income above and beyond that needed to eat and have a warm bed, both are a nigh-impossible challenges. Undoubtedly, I'll find some summertime work which will allow me to have some money through the tourist season, but the thought of seasonal labor leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I will build some hives this year, even if I have to wait for summer to do it and can't have bees 'til next year. I'm planning another couple of hives designed by Frenchman Emile Warré and probably a Bienenkiste. I'll have to see what happens before the spring arrives, though.

On boats, I'm waffling between a couple of cheap scow sailers - Gaving Atkin's Flying Mouse design or a PuddleDuck Racer. I'm also considering a skiff, which I might also/alternatively use as a sail trainer. Again with Gavin Atkin, his Julie Skiff looks promising, as does Michael Storer's Goat Island Skiff. I admit to being drawn to some designs from Jim Welsford and Paul Fisher, but I'm more likely to build one or more of these four boats.

I hope the new year finds you all healthy and in good spirits.

Travel and Hogswallup

2011-10-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

Going Home

I've made the decision to return to Alaska. I'm hoping to be on a plane before mid-November, but I'm not going without a job awaiting me. I'm trying for rotational positions on the North Slope, so if anyone has any tips, hot leads or contacts I can name-drop, I'm appreciative. My professional background includes auto mechanics, taxicab driving, light facilities maintenance, aircraft refueling, weather reporting, extensive clerical experience and, of course, I have now built a wooden boat.

Hogswallup for Sale

Hogswallup, my Barton Skiff, is for sale and will come with everything - life jackets, flares, hand-tied rope fenders, crawfish traps and lines/buoys, fishing maps/charts, oars, motor - everything; even left-over glass tape and epoxy. I'm about US$3800 invested, all up, plus my construction time. I will entertain all reasonable offers (don't have to equal or exceed my investment, but must be large enough for me to take seriously). Sale conditions are as-is, where-is. The motor, today, 04 Oct, has about 12 hours on it. Unless sold, or leaving for work prior, I will continue to operate him as a commercial crawfisher until 31 Oct.

Of Oars and Tiller Extensions

2011-09-28T08:00:00.001-08:00

I was going to skip this blog post, but decided maybe I ought to just do it. So, here I am typing away and putting up pictures. Yay?

Oars

These were done several weeks ago. Pardon the tardiness.

I started by ripping a ten-foot 2x4 (pine or spruce? I don't know.) into a pair of 1.5x1.5 sticks, plus a strip of scrap. I then decided I didn't need ten foot oars and cut two feet off the ends. I ripped 2x4 instead of buying 2x2 because the 2x4 cost 1/3 less than a pair of 2x2s of the same length.

The photo shows marks at the handle end, but I also marked the blade end of each shaft. I'm going to leave a block of square wood at the handle end of the loom to partially counterbalance the oars, which should make them a little easier to work with. At this length and weight of wood, it's probably not important, but I think it also is beautiful, so I did it.

A little action with the draw knife rounds out the handles, nicely.

The blade is roughly 24" long and six inches wide, made from scrap 3/8" ply. It's been a few weeks so I don't remember the exact numbers.

I cut the slot so the blade would hang out the end about eight inches.

Standard, water resistant wood glue. These are cheap oars and I'm not going to use good epoxy. When they break, come apart or get lost, I'll just make a replacement.

Shaping the loom. I love this draw knife. It removes wood well. I tapered the shaft along the blade. I left enough for some strength and probably removed about four ounces of weight. Again, not really a big deal on oars of this size, but I did it anyway.

Finished, almost. I still need to wrap them where they'll chafe in the locks, and varnish them. They have proven quite functional, though. Total length about 8.5 feet and, I think, maybe a foot too long for really fine rowing on this particular boat.

Total cost: $4, one hour of glue drying and two hours of light labor. That sure beats $50 apiece!

Tiller Extension

If you've been following my adventures with Hogswallup, you know he's got a trim problem. I'm trying to solve that by moving my weight forward, rather than add a bunch of ballast up front. In order to move forward, I need either remote steering or an extension to the tiller on the motor. I opted for a tiller extension because I could build it for less than $15, and the motor isn't easily converted to remote operation.

The major components of my tiller extension are a 24" section of 2"ID ABS pipe and an off-cut from my oars. I was originally going to use a scrap of 2x4 but when I was getting ready to rip it to size, I found the off-cuts which are already ripped to size and have the added benefit of being a few inches longer.

A slot was cut in the pipe so it could compress and squeeze the motor's tiller handle. This assures that I can work the throttle as well as steer.

This piece of scrap being glued onto each end of the stick is for shaping the handle to a) fit the pipe better, and b) add some contour to the hand-grip area so I can know where my throttle position is by the twist.

The finished handle and then the finished extension. The overall length is something near four feet. I didn't measure. Note the shape at the hand grip. That should easily let me feel where the throttle position is at. I joined the two pieces with 1 3/4" deck screws. The "bottom" of the pipe also has a series of holes drilled through to allow any errant water to drain out.

Total cost, including clamps: $12 and about two hours (including glue-drying time) light labor.

Here it is installed with exhaust clamps from the auto parts store. I set it up so that the "up" part of the hand grip is centered at 50% wide-open-throttle. In use, it's slightly too long for comfort while seated on the center thwart and slightly too short for comfort (and safety!) while standing in the forward foot well. I will probably chop three inches from it and use it from a seated position. I probably will also install a swiveling, padded seat on the center thwart. My long legs feel cramped on these seats and the hard wood bruises the tush.

I still need to figure out how to arrange the emergency shut-off lanyard to work from the extended tiller. If I run it through eyes up to the handle, every time I move away from the tiller, it will turn the boat. That's unacceptable. I really don't want to worry about whether a dangling bit of twine will tangle in something, so simply lengthening the lanyard really isn't a good solution, either. I'm open to suggestions.

Here's a shot of Hogswallup's improved wake. Moving me forward dropped the bow about six inches. He doesn't pound nearly so bad in lumpy water. The downside? I get completely soaked in spray! Need to figure out how and where to install some spray rails. Also, I can't throw the tiller "hard over" because I can't reach far enough; and it's now tricky to work the throttle, gears and steering in close quarters. With practice it will get easier, though.

I still wonder if a hydrofoil or thrust ring would make any useful improvement.

Hogswallup Shakedown Cruise 2

2011-09-25T18:35:00.001-08:00

I didn't go where I said I would go yesterday. Yesterday, I cut down the transom on the boat so the motor's propeller would sit in clear water the way it's supposed to.

So, this time, I took a camera. After discovering that Charbonneau Park is on the other side of Ice Harbor Dam, I decided I would go to the much-nearer Hood Park which, sadly, I did not take any photos of. The story begins!

I gallantly ... What? I set off from Cascade Marina in Pasco, WA, where I keep the boat moored, and turned south. There was bit of breeze from west, stirring up a little chop.

Taking pictures of water is hard. This photo doesn't not properly illustrate the degree of chop on the Columbia. All the shadows and highlights are missing.

This little campground is just at the mouth of the Snake. There must've been a Boy Scout encampment, or similar, going on. Between both passes (south then north), I counted about six tipis back in those trees.

The view up the mighty Snake River from its mouth at the Columbia River. The surface currents, here, are pretty confused. I did a lot of correcting my direction with the tiller.

A junk heap just east of the railroad bridge. This is where good cars go to die. There's also a pile of bits from the crusher ready to be loaded on to a barge. That pile didn't make the photo; sorry.

This big push boat appears to have about the same amount of freeboard as Hogswallup. It has much, much larger engines, though; probably 10,000 horsepower between the two screws. Look at the shape of those stacks! :) This beast was moored across the river from Hood Park. I still had plenty of time, so I kept going.

One hour out from the marina, you can barely make out Ice Harbor Dam.

15 minutes later. I was already encountering surviving eddies from the generators.

90 minutes out. Eddies more frequent.

Two hours out and this is where I turned around. That navigation buoy is the last channel marker before arrival at the locks. I estimate another ten minutes would have put me at the locks. Note how the water in the last few photos has calmed. I didn't even notice; paying too much attention to the scenery.

Ice Harbor Dam today flowed around 29,000 cubic feet per second of water, passed some 6,000 fish through the ladder system, and produced about 600 megawatts of electricity.

When I turned around, I was immediately hit by new wind - which was hiding at my back the whole way up the Snake. As I traveled back west, the wind picked up; and so did the waves.

Again, water is really hard to photograph. Also, I did not spend a lot of effort. I decided I didn't want to hit a wave just wrong and lose the camera overboard. There was one section of river, about 1/2 mile or so, where the waves averaged more than two feet crest-to-trough and were frequently capped with white curlies.

I still haven't solved the trim issue with Hogswallup, so sometimes the wave interval and his motion matched up and his bow cleft through like he knew what he was doing. Most of the time, his bottom was busy taking a beating.

Not much farther to get back to the Columbia. You can barely see two lines of wind turbines on the hills across the river. They're making pretty good power in this stiff breeze!

Aaah... back at the marina.

The total trip was approximately 20.3 nautical miles (estimated with help of chart). It was done in 3.5 hours. Average overland speed was (20.3 miles / 3.5 hrs = 5.8 kts; or) 6.7 statute miles per hour. It seems dropping that prop into the water gave Hogswallup a speed boost.

For the benefit of Gavin, this photo shows the stern in the trough between the bow and stern waves. The hump just aft is not very much lower than the sheer at the stern board. I didn't get a photo but there's also a swell of water pushing up and to the side right at the prop. This is washing up against the inside of the motor well. I'll try to get a photo tomorrow.

Since I haven't don't anything to solve it, yet, there still exists a trim issue. He still rides with his bow in the sky and stern in a hole. Hopefully, bringing him into proper trim will squeeze out another 1/2 knot of speed (or more? not likely, but one can hope).

Looking at the water flow inside the well has me wondering if a hydrofoil would provide a noteworthy difference? I'll get him in trim, first, though. :) One thing at a time!

Judging by the distance made today, I might try for the the Port of Walla Walla tomorrow. Or I might spend the day sourcing parts for and a fabricating a tiller extension; and finishing my oars.

View Hogswallup 2nd Shakedown Cruise in a larger map

Hogswallup Shakedown Cruise 1

2011-09-23T21:18:00.000-08:00

More delays, then today his first shakedown cruise.

First, the motor.

I bought a Coleman outboard motor, 5hp, mounted it up and went out today to start the motor's break-in process as well as learn some of the character of how Hogswallup handles. So, first, the questions about the motor.

Why Coleman? Well, it's made by Parsun Marine in China. That's not exactly a glowing review, right there, by the way. Parsun and, by extension, Coleman motors get some really polarized reviews online. This is especially true of American reviewers. Apparently, Americans think we should be able to bolt the motor up, top up the crankcase oil and run Wide-Open-Throttle (WOT) right away!

Hey, ask Honda, Tohatsu/Nissan, Johnson/Mercury, etc what the biggest reason for early motor failure is. They will all tell you it's because of improper break-in. Some of them do the most critical hour or two before they leave the factory. Some don't.

So I bought a Coleman because I got it for $700 less than a Honda or Merc of the same power rating, and I would've had to wait another week (and pay an extra $200) for a Tohatsu. They all burn about the same amount of fuel, weigh about the same, etc. etc. so it came down to price. Coleman won.

Now, the trip.

I left Cascade Marina and cruised upriver to the south end of Howard Aman Park. This took two hours; the first hour at 1/2 WOT and the second hour at 3/4 WOT per the motor break-in instructions. The return trip took about 80 minutes, mostly at 3/4 WOT. That's a total distance of about 16.5 nautical miles (16.5nm / 3.5hrs = 4.71nmph). I probably criss-crossed the river about four times and did a bunch of maneuvering to experiment with behavior in different sized wakes, which would add maybe two miles to the distance, bringing an average overland speed near 5.2nmph; or about six statute miles per hour. Note these speeds and times are all pretty vague and off-the-cuff (though distance was measured on a chart) so are not to be thought of as accurate at all.

Just like Pembroke Brian's, my Barton Skiff squats in the stern if the pilot sits there. I need to either shift my weight forward with a tiller extension or add a bunch of ballast in the bow. Also, just like Brian had to do, I need to chop an inch or two from my transom so the prop (short shaft motor) is in clear water below the boat.

As expected, Hogswallup slams in a chop, crossing a wake, or any other time the water's a bit rough. My part of the Columbia River is always a little bit lumpy and he slammed most of the cruise. He only porpoised when crossing big (three foot +) speedboat wakes, and any boat his size would have. Hopefully, this will tame a bit once the trim issue is addressed.

He rolls quite easily. He doesn't capsize easily - he's not tipsy - but he rolls quite a lot more than I expected. I should have expected it because he's not a fat, beamy, boat. He's a slender little cruiser, so I should have expected the amount of roll experienced when hit abeam by waves or when leaning over the side, but didn't.

He never once climbed up out of this stern wave. The whole cruise, he squatted in that trough. I hope this is just a trim issue. Opening up to WOT didn't make him go any faster than 3/4 WOT, or even 1/2 WOT did. Nor could my, highly trained by years of semi-forced automotive mechanic labor, ears detect any change in motor pitch between 1/2, 3/4 and full WOT. Perhaps the prop was in a near constant state of ventilation. Perhaps this will be solved by cutting down the transom.

More tomorrow. Gonna go downriver and up the Snake a ways to Charbonneau Park. I'll get the transom cut, but I don't think I'll have a tiller extension made up by then. Maybe the prop swinging in better water will make him go a scootch faster; maybe not.

F/V Hogswallup floats!

2011-09-15T20:54:00.000-08:00

After several weeks full of delays and disappointments, F/V Hogswallup is finally floating peacefully on his lines in slip E2 at Cascade Marina in Pasco, WA. The front yard looks empty without him perched on sawhorses. It would have been faster to launch him by lashing up a handcart from 2x4s and a furniture dolly.

In the spring, I bought a ten foot fiberglass skiff so I could have the trailer and the motor. The boat's in lousy condition (I'll fix it up.), the motor is old (1953 Mercury) and overpowered (10hp) for the Barton Skiff, but I was able to reconfigure the trailer so that it was only four feet too short. Having done so, I rolled it under Hogswallup and dropped him onto it.

The launch was generally uneventful, though I did have to return to the truck a couple times for forgotten items. The 1948 Sea King 5hp outboard motor I put on him wouldn't start, so I got to learn right away that he rows pretty nicely when heavy loaded and with bow-down trim. I even managed to turn him in his own length. It was also nice to learn that my home made oars (future blog post) are less flimsy than they feel. Now, I also know how to finish them.

I load tested Hogswallup pretty much right away. The first person to climb aboard was my buddy Cliff, who tips the scales at over 400lbs. Gear, motor and Cliff on the forward thwart dropped the bow so much, the stern stood about 4" in the air. He trimmed out better when I climbed into the stern, bringing his total payload up near 700lbs. About ten minutes of easy rowing put him in his slip, just as it was beginning to get dark.

Next boat project: fix up that old 'glass skiff to sell.

Weekender

2011-08-14T20:26:00.002-08:00

Another paper model! It's been a while since I posted a model pictorial. This time it's a model boat. It's a model of Stevenson Projects Weekender pocket yacht. The life size boat is designed to be 19 feet long by six feet at it's widest point. It has classic skipjack styling, which I find quite handsome, and spartan camping accommodation for two inside the cabin, but can be fitted out however the builder likes. This model, as built, is 7 1/4 inches long by 2 1/4 inches wide. It's designed by Kevin Green and can be downloaded here: http://custompaperpocketyachts.k-j-g.com/papermodels/index.html.

The two bulkheads are each laminated from four layers of cardstock; the keel six. Assembly is pretty straight forward.

... sort of. The bulkheads are attached to the underside of the deck. There are no glue tabs for them and because I could hide them easily, I made some from scrap. It turns out that the tab for the forward bulkhead was covering what should have been the hole for the mast to step through. Little things like this is why it's good to read the instructions all the way through before you build.

Here we have the deck in place and the cockpit innards and cabin roof ready for install. Installing the deck would have been much easier if the glue tabs had been on the hull, rather than the deck. It wasn't difficult or even very finicky, but it could have been made easier.

Mast and bow sprit installed, and the other spars waiting to be rolled up.

I built the stand out of sequence because I really wanted a way to set the model down without it tipping on the keel.

The mains'l's on and the jib mostly in place. This is the first paper model I've built to use string. I used blue thread which is very similar in color to Samson's Amsteel Blue rope.

Sorry for the flash wash. This is almost done. Just need to hang the rudder and a few other detail bits.

Ah, here we are. The weekender in all it's glory.

and on display on an end table next to my model Barton Skiff.

This lighting makes it look more sexy. :)

Note: As much as I think this a pretty boat, I will probably not choose to build a life sized Weekender. It's not what I'm looking for in a pocket yacht and far from what I'm looking for in a real yacht. Having said that, I think it would be fun to build, so if someone would like to commission me to build them a Weekender (or any other Stevenson pocket yacht), I will happily do so for a reasonable price.

Barton Skiff 9 - Paint

2011-08-04T05:38:00.001-08:00

There's really not a whole lot to say about paint, except I did it. The sides and bottom were first painted with two coats of epoxy. I painted with ACE Royal brand exterior acrylic-latex, water based paint over Kilz 2 primer, un-tinted. I am really disappointed with the thin, drippy purple but reasonably pleased with the others. Green is "satin" while orange and purple are "high gloss" even if they don't look it.

Eye-candy -

Roll over.

First bird dropping. This is the port side bottom, amidships.

Roll over again.

That last is me in the photo. A fortuitous visit from my brother allowed this shot to be taken.

Next post: Lettering and deck fittings. I may or may not also post pics from the launch party, but that will probably be its own post.

Barton Skiff 8 - Skegs

2011-08-03T08:33:00.000-08:00

Doing the skegs was pretty interesting. Gavin doesn't give much guidance in the plans. There's a drawing showing his conceptual positioning on the bottom of the boat, but no measurements or textual description. I sent off a quick e-mail and he replied with 3.5" skegs from the deepest part of the rocker all the way stern, parallel to the motor well for the stern skegs. I don't remember exactly what was mentioned for the foreskeg, but I pretty much ignored it and did what I thought would work well. It matches his drawing pretty closely.

The rear skegs are made from 1x4 stock. I think I cut about 8" off when I angled them at the stern. The foreward skeg is made from 5' of a 1x8 ripped in half lengthwise.

So, first I drew my lines. Nothing fancy, here.

Then I measured and cut my skegs to fit. The skegs were clamped (straps) to the hull at one end (of the skegs) and then a block and pencil was used to draw the rocker onto the boards. They were then cut to the curve and the fit fine-tuned.

The fore skeg was much the same, only different. The curve in the rocker is much more severe, up here. I cut the curve and glued the cut piece onto the bottom of the board, instead of leaving it scrap.

This worked well and was later fine-tuned and shaped to prettiness.

I'm more than a little proud of how pretty they look in profile. Too bad they'll be under the water where nobody can see. The bits of flash on the ends are un-trimmed fiberglass. I'll clean that up before painting.

Next: paint. Woohoo! Almost done!

Barton Skiff 7 - Decks and Gunwales

2011-07-25T18:36:00.000-08:00

First, I decided to add a second layer of ply to the bow decking because it's going to have to have that mass to hold mooring cleats and such in place. Also, adding thickness was easier than trying to fair the sheerline by removing material. Right-triangles are easier to cut and measure, so it was done in two pieces. This deck is now a little over an inch thick, counting epoxy and glass. It should hold some bolts in place without requiring backing plates fairly well. If/when I get around to cutting access holes into the chamber beneath, I may add backing plates for additional strength, but this should be just fine for now.

While I was working on the bow, I decided it was time to finally glass it all up and make it smoothe and round and pretty. Four layers of glass cover most of the bow at the stem to provide lots of resistance to water intrusion and collisions with docks and such. Some parts have more than four layers - up to six. There was this gaping maw at the very point. I mixed some epoxy with sawdust to fill it, then smoothed it over by sanding, coating with thickened epoxy and then glass.

There are no photos of it, but the deck for the ground tackle well refused to be made to fit. I cut a new deck from two pieces of scrap ply and fitted them in. It may or may not be the best or most elegant solution, but it works and that's all that matters. I think that extra seam may add a bit strength to the whole affair, too, but it doesn't much matter, in the end.

The decks at the stern wouldn't fit well, but they fit better than the the ground tackle well once I added these supports. The gaps were filled when the boards were placed. Similar supports were needed for all of the thwarts at their outer edges. All joints were filled and glassed.

The gunwales are the only place on the whole boat where actual lumber was used in the construction. I was going to make up some really cool laminated planks by lamming a whole bunch of thin strips in place. I ended up using those strips to strengthen the edges of the whole boat, inside and out, but due to time and money considerations, I ended up using uncut planks for the cockpit gunwales.

First, I weighted them in place and traced the curves on their underside (from inside). Then I used this swell compass to add 3/8" (thickness of side plywood) to the measured outter edge. This is a little sloppy but effective way to do this. I ended up doing some trimming and they still don't look very good. I laminated a strip on the outer as a little filler. For most of the lengths, there remains enough room for another strip, but I was uncertain I had enough filler remaining to glue it on, so I left it off. The existing gap will be well sealed with epoxy agains water but, sadly, will remain ugly.

I tried to find a better way to clamp these planks in place while I was setting them, but couldn't. Everything either wouldn't reach or caused the plank to move. Using the bricks was effective, if a little unsafe and teetery.

Next up, a mostly non-pictorial review of the painting process.

Hey legislators, it's okay to raise taxes

2011-07-23T07:38:00.001-08:00

... sort of.

I was chatting with an old pal who visited a couple days ago. He's a strong ... Democrat? Republican? Greenie? ... I don't know and, frankly, don't care. He's one of those "party people" in the political sense. Somehow or other, the conversation moved into the dangerous territory of politics and the current divide between the U.S. legislative (House, Senate) and executive (President) branches over budgets, debt and the economy, in general.

By putting together the statements from Obama and Boehner over the last 30 hours (today's date is 2011-07-23), or so, we can pretty much conclude that the major divide is about taxation and, in particular, taxing the super-wealthy. My buddy is against altering the tax structure for the rich, claiming the effect would ripple and harm the economy in the end. I'm all for adjusting taxes on the wealthy because I think their actual contribution to the economy is considerably less than what they want us to believe. Here's my little rundown on taxes and income levels.

The super-wealthy (top 0.01%) pay more actual taxes than most other Americans, combined. This is largely because they hold more wealth than all other Americans, combined. However, they still do not bear their share of the tax burden because they pay less taxes relative to their wealth than any other group of Americans. They are able to do this because they don't have to use any of their cost-of-living or lifestyle-support funds to take advantage of a plethora of tax discounts and shelters, where most Americans would have to financially cripple themselves for life and/or live in cardboard boxes and eat from dumpsters in order to do this.

Most of the super-wealthy use their money to help businesses (sort of) by investing in the stock markets, while other funds go to charitable donations (tax shelter!), many of which are outright owned by the super-wealthy individuals and can be steered to help indirectly boost other investments or businesses which they control (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, does exactly this for Microsoft when they donate old and outdated computers to poor schools). It is extremely rare for the the super-wealthy to invest in small business. They may claim they do, but their money instead goes to the stock markets and into the hands of big business which generally has less actual need of it. It's pretty uncommon for a large business to benefit from $100,000 temporary increase in cash-flow as significantly as a small business benefits from 1/20 that number.

So, the super-wealthy can afford to carry their share of the tax burden. Most of them will notice only as much as it is reflected in a profit/loss statement somewhere. It certainly would not effect their lifestyle in the least. It would not effect their charitable donations because those are not only tax shelters and boons to their other investments, but they also help their public image since they are perceived by the majority of the population as little more than despots. It might have a minor effect on their political interference, but that's unlikely because their lobbyists would continue to give them access to and influence over legislators and it is simply too powerful to give up.

An increased tax burden on the super-wealthy would only effect the stock and bond markets to any real degree. It might stifle some smaller publicly traded companies. That's not really a big deal, though, because it can be equalized out, somewhat by a shift in government expenditures and minor alteration to business taxes.

Small business (collectively) employs almost twice as many people as big business (collectively) per the Small Business Administration. The super-wealthy don't invest in small businesses because they're usually not publicly traded and they can't waste their time evaluating every "Butch's Lingerie Alteration" and "Suzie's Motorcycle Boot Repair" for possible investment opportunity. Quite frankly, small business(es) are beneath the notice of the super-wealthy.

Small business(es) are also beneath the notice of your legislators. Why is this? Because they don't make huge headlines when they hire and fire. G.E., G.M., Chrysler, Dow Chemical, etc hire by the hundred and fires by the thousand. Luke's Baby Harnesses hires and fires individuals, as does Marcie's Poop Scoop Bazaar.

Yet, small business and small business owners carry the major tax burden. Self-employment taxes have fewer discounts available than other wage-related taxes. Also, relative to their revenues, small businesses pay more for wages and wage-associated taxes. Other employee benefits cost comparatively more, as well, such as health insurance because a small business doesn't have the numbers of employees to effectively bargain the rates. And on and on.

Reducing the employer's wage tax helps all businesses, but particularly small business for the reasons in the previous paragraph. By making it less costly to employ someone, businesses can hire more people, pay better wages, provide better benefit packages, upgrade equipment, expand operations or location, or a combination. The "lost" tax revenue from employers on wages paid would be made up for by the higher actual taxes paid by the super-wealthy and by the personal income taxes volunteered and Social Security donations made by newly created jobs. And the unemployment rate would drop.

Also, Obama could, if wanted, release some of the unallocated stimulus monies to the SBA Loan program (and instruct the SBA to reduce that interest rate) which would also generate jobs and additional tax revenue. Some of that stimulus money could be returned to the general fund to help pay for continued government operations and reduce the need to sell more federal bonds (borrow money).

Please, chew a hole in these ponderings in the comments section.

Barton Skiff 6 - Sealing up the bottom

2011-07-22T19:11:00.000-08:00

It was now time to roll the boat over and start on the outside of those bottom seams. Remember I had already glassed the inside of these seams, so I needed to do was fill and glass the outside.

In actuality, a bit more was done. On close examination of the seams, I noticed the gaps were in many places quite wide in addition to being the full thickness of the wood in depth. This was going to use up a lot of expensive epoxy filler. There had to be a way to reduce that expense!

Weapons of choice. It turned out the planes and spokeshave were not very useful. The nature of plywood and the continuous curves of boats impose limits that I was not able to overcome with those tools. The draw knives did all the heavy work, followed up with the wood rasp and then some 80-grit power sanding.

Know how to sharpen your tools. Wood is very good at dulling edges and fiberglass is even better. A dull blade will slip more often, making it more dangerous. I use a file to develop the edge followed by a stone to hone away any burrs. It would be awkward, but I could theoretically shave with these.

The length of boat before shaping edges. Note that these photos show no glass or filler in that upper chine gash. I actually chose to wait on that so I could do all that edgy filley work all at once.

A very nice rounding, if I can say so myself. Most of the savings on epoxy/filler at these edges is achieved through depth reduction at the seam. Strength is maintained because of the fully bonded glass fibers. This is another reason to use epoxy instead of polyester or vinylester fiberglass resin - epoxy fully bonds in three dimensions while other resins bond along one or two axis. It also is less effected by oils, sugars and acids in the wood.

Length of boat after shaping the edges. It looks wet because I have treated against rot with ethylene glycol. All bottom edges received the rounding treatment, as did the corners at the stern. It gives them all a pretty shape. This rounded edge at the bottom chines, however, may slightly reduce the boat's designed handling and speed characteristics. I think any such loss will be probably be unnoticeable.

Next: Decks, gunwales and sealing the bow!

Barton Skiff 5 - Repairs already?

2011-07-19T18:32:00.000-08:00

At the end of the last installment, there were some really big gashes down the length of the boat at the upper chine, breaks in some joints and we still hadn't glassed the bow. Well... the glass on the bow is going to wait for the next installment, BUT! Here I get to explain how I filled those other gaps and glassed the outer seams, too. Here we go.

First I filled and re-glassed those broken joints in the upper sides. They are nice and strong, now; stronger than the surrounding wood. That was the easy part.

Then I attacked those chines. I cut lots thin strips of wood from my scrap ply and custom fitted each strip so that it did most of the gap-filling. This saved me a bunch of money and weight versus just filling those huge gaps with epoxy filler. I think I got stronger joints in the bargain, too. It take a couple extra days, though.

I used bits of painter's tape to hold the strips in place while I glassed the inside of the seam(s). This glass also effectively anchored the strips in place so I could remove the painter's tape and start using lots of epoxy filler to fill the now much smaller gaps between wood pieces.

Once that was all done, it was a simple matter to sand it all relatively smooth and glass over it all.

Stay tuned for my next exciting adventure in boat building, where I will seal up the bottom seams. to make the hull finally fully watertight.

Barton Skiff, part Four

2011-06-16T10:36:00.000-08:00

The sides are on, finally. They were not put on without difficulty and there's a huge gaping, slash-like hole running the entire length of the boat where the upper chine should be. This is due to my piss-poor cutting from way back in Stage One. Right, so, on with the photo-commentary, whee!!!

[Ahem] For some reason, I'm having difficulty with the layout of the photos today.

This is pretty much where we left off last time. Attaching the beam-wise framework did most of the work of attaching the lower side panels.

Here's how I bent the sides together at the bow. It is often a forgotten thing that spreading at the rear is as effective as pinching at the fore. :) This worked really well. I forget who suggested the use of boards in this manner, but thanks!!!

A look inside the port side of the bow angle after taping the seams. Note that I couldn't get a fillet into the bow angle or along the join of bottom and side. I had to pre-wet the tape to get it in here as I couldn't effectively wet it out in place. This one turned out quite nice. The starboard side is very ugly and I would do it over again if I could figure how without major surgery. This decision may come back to haunt me later, but I'm pretty sure it won't be soon.

Ick. I trimmed this so the side panel and the edge of the frame were the same length on the starboard side and completely forgot to do it until too late on the port side. Neither side was very fun to work with and both sides broke at this joint.

Because the fiberglass reinforcement at the join of the two-part side panel, it didn't bend and largely refused to lie flush with Frame2a for attachment. I had to flatten it by clamping boards along the length.

When I went to attach the panel to the forward frame members and bulkheads, it became obvious (by way of ominous crackly-crunch noises) that I would have to steam-bend the board between frames 2a and 1a in order to relieve stress at frame2a and prevent breaking the panel. With the stern portions already attached, I couldn't just stick it into a steam box, so I had to do it in-place. Here's my set-up. I slowly, slow increased the clamp pressure between multiple passes of the iron and re-wettings of the towel. This took about 90 minutes, per side.

All that steam-bending effort was for naught. It broke, anyway, with all sickening tearing sounds one might expect from any other fabric. The air-void in the original panel-joint, the extra stiffening provided by the glass and the fulcrum location of the frame all contributed their parts to this mini-disaster.

The sides are on! View from the starboard stern quarter. The full-length holes along the sides between the side panels are clearly visible in this shot.

So, I have some repair to do, already. That will be the next post.

I suspect the problems I'm encountering are mostly due to inexperience. This is my first boat, my first construction project involving bending wood (to any degree) and first use of epoxy and fiberglass. In a private e-mail, the designer commented that it was brave of me to take on such a complex boat design as a first boat. While I agree in retrospect, at the time I chose this boat, it was the simplicity of the design and construction - as well as the size and stated design goals of fuel efficiency - that compelled me to build this design. I had always intended to build the much simpler PuddleDuck Racer AFTER this build. :)

Until next time, the comment line boxes are open.

Just for fun - Bacon Ipsum

2011-06-14T10:04:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of the good folks over at BaconIpsum.com come the following paragraphs. As you can see, it's a much meatier lorem ipsum generator.

Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet salami excepteur sint, irure pancetta  ea t-bone esse cillum.  Duis beef ad, fugiat non dolor tail pork loin  esse voluptate veniam ball tip headcheese in.  Sausage adipisicing  culpa, strip steak pork chop enim et ut headcheese eiusmod beef ribs.   Strip steak shankle enim tail incididunt.  Aliquip voluptate pork loin  t-bone, duis ullamco meatloaf chuck sausage cillum proident eu tri-tip  deserunt swine.  Shank shankle flank, fatback pork loin ut ut sint  aliqua ullamco pariatur labore turkey ham shoulder.  Minim laborum do,  chicken deserunt tri-tip ut est occaecat aliqua ham strip steak  reprehenderit eu brisket.

Duis exercitation tongue, nostrud cillum  tempor ut aliqua headcheese incididunt.  Brisket cillum esse irure  shankle.  Sausage aliquip culpa boudin.  Ham hock tail pork belly,  aliqua turkey in meatball headcheese laboris salami velit occaecat sint  cow shankle.  Cillum voluptate sint short ribs veniam, pancetta tongue  drumstick.  Biltong turkey pork chop labore beef ribs non, headcheese  sed sausage drumstick culpa ut quis bacon anim.  Ham sint turkey culpa  mollit, pariatur tenderloin cillum exercitation salami ball tip bacon  beef dolore rump.

Tenderloin bresaola beef venison dolor turkey.   Ball tip dolore rump consequat shoulder, nisi jowl.  Fugiat ex velit, eu  sed fatback in nisi pig chuck tri-tip tail deserunt.  Dolor headcheese  in, ham hock tenderloin magna ut tail non enim brisket.  Headcheese  irure salami laboris biltong.  Aliqua meatloaf incididunt shank esse ham  hock id, short loin officia anim consequat reprehenderit.  Shoulder  mollit chicken ribeye nulla, cow venison tri-tip occaecat eu  consectetur.

Sunt hamburger laboris meatball deserunt ribeye  cupidatat.  Esse t-bone quis, bacon irure pig eu in.  Pariatur excepteur  pastrami tenderloin, brisket eu sed aliquip cillum tongue in.  Bresaola  pork chop sausage quis labore, esse dolor minim ribeye in beef  voluptate brisket flank enim.  Swine andouille ad turkey, in beef ribs  adipisicing t-bone ullamco pig in proident pork rump.  Sirloin do  tri-tip ex enim shank, dolor pork loin esse jowl dolore.  Aliqua ham  hock do bacon, incididunt chicken turkey.

Pig reprehenderit nulla  dolore, ut ham meatball swine in tongue salami ball tip magna.  Beef  veniam corned beef incididunt do ground round, pariatur non esse  laborum.  In tail cow, voluptate short ribs sausage headcheese esse.   Esse boudin proident pork, reprehenderit tail jowl cow tongue.  Deserunt  headcheese proident voluptate, in pancetta laboris exercitation veniam  commodo.  Sint aliqua minim pork belly salami, est excepteur swine  ground round in.  Veniam brisket minim sed occaecat.

Biltong ut  shoulder, irure fatback laborum turkey labore commodo exercitation  tenderloin pork belly aliquip consequat ad.  Occaecat boudin sunt  turkey, ut salami magna pig bacon ullamco pork laboris.  Nisi laborum  labore eu dolore elit.  Id deserunt sed ground round culpa et, nulla  beef ribs.  Nisi dolore nulla, do veniam jowl aute hamburger commodo  pork belly exercitation sausage magna.  Elit salami pariatur, in ham  hock laboris rump qui exercitation sed short loin ut.  Tongue magna  brisket ut, shankle spare ribs ribeye.

Aliquip est ea short ribs  boudin shankle, officia ribeye ground round tongue dolore magna turkey  tail.  Ea eiusmod aute, consectetur bresaola duis beef biltong velit  headcheese voluptate in.  Deserunt biltong jerky laboris.  Meatloaf  tri-tip nulla excepteur, tongue headcheese fatback reprehenderit.  Quis  strip steak in, ut sirloin consequat velit meatloaf enim tempor dolor.   Exercitation turkey dolore ex.  Ullamco voluptate consequat, veniam  velit aliqua aute in sint short ribs pork swine in headcheese eiusmod.

Pork  loin adipisicing pork belly ground round shank.  Nulla occaecat ham  hock proident ad, short loin incididunt shankle enim pastrami ball tip  adipisicing sunt.  Est exercitation magna adipisicing nisi chuck,  brisket t-bone laboris biltong.  Nostrud beef shank duis, beef ribs ham  hock swine veniam laborum anim sunt ut bacon.  Qui pork loin proident  dolore, sirloin meatball shankle spare ribs.  Sint ut commodo, short  ribs aliquip fatback ea fugiat.  Drumstick elit in, ground round aute  shoulder voluptate boudin hamburger.

Anim shoulder short loin  irure bacon, ham labore in eu.  Ut quis jerky, spare ribs duis jowl  hamburger chicken ex pork belly flank pastrami deserunt.  Nisi brisket  elit dolore ground round.  Quis biltong pariatur laboris.  Esse ribeye  mollit qui short loin pancetta, pariatur chuck jowl dolor nulla sint  nisi deserunt.  Ribeye ut in velit elit proident ullamco laborum sausage  drumstick non cillum.  In tail meatloaf, pork duis adipisicing tempor  meatball ham ham hock pastrami salami flank.

Barton Skiff, stage three

2011-05-25T12:52:00.000-08:00

I've been slow about updating. At time of writing, I'm about finished gluing the lower side panels to the bottom and framework. This post covers attachment of the frames to the bottom. There's nothing magical in this and I encountered no difficulties that weren't of my own somewhat shabby craftsmanship. My biggest comment on the matter is this: Wow! Filleting and taping all these very many seams is really time consuming. I probably could have gotten away with merely gluing everything together with thickened epoxy and save an enormous amount of time and some epoxy. However, by taping everything up, as well, the overall strength of the boat has been increased by quite a lot.

Okay, the photos:

Getting supports set and test-fitting. If you look at the photo on the right, you can see some big, big gaps around the frame. Test fit everything dry before you glue!!! I cannot stress this enough. If a gap is too large, it cannot be filled with filler without losing strength and you will have to cut a new piece. How large is too large for such a gap? I don't know. I trusted that none of my gaps are too large.

Just about ready to install the stem and Frame 0a. These will be largely sealed up and unavailable for access to be drained or cleaned. All surfaces are being thoroughly coated in epoxy to guard against water incursion.

Coating the stem and forward-most frame in a layer of epoxy. First coat was thinned with paint-thinner to aid penetration into the wood. The following two layers were laid fairly thick. There are government studies showing the futility of this approach to waterproofing wood. That said, no other waterproofing method is effective, either, and it DOES slow the incursion. Also, the epoxy coat will reduce the wood's tendency to rot because the micro-pores are too small to allow oxygen to pass, so rot organisms will suffocate. See? You don't NEED to waterproof the wood to prevent rot. :)

I'm doing this to a few other areas, as well, and I'll show off those photos when I get to the post on painting and finishing.

Here's my clamping system for holding everything in place while I glue and tape it all together. It worked very well and I am pleased with the results.

Next up: attaching the sides, including the filling of large gaps with additional wood in order to correct cutting errors.

A Tale of two GUIs

2011-04-03T13:53:00.000-08:00

With the imminent release of both Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal", sporting Canonical's new Unity interface, and Gnome 3.0 I thought I would review them and see which I like better. The short answer: I like Gnome 3.0 over Unity. I will be either stalling my upgrade until Gnome3 is stable on Ubuntu or I will be changing linux distributions and possibly even operating systems (have been contemplating a switch to BSD.)

Before relating my admittedly brief experiences with these two GUIs, you should maybe know why I don't mention the option of bounding over to KDE or XFCE or some other GUI. I thought KDE okay in the early days. I was a KDE guy before the release of Gnome2. Even then, I preferred the Gnome interface, but it was just too crashy for regular use. My switch to Gnome, even then, took until I realized that all the applications which I consider "best of breed" use the GTK+ toolkit and why wasn't I using the desktop environment that used the same base libraries and save some system resources? So, I switched.

I experimented with KDE4 when it was initially released and quickly fled back to Gnome. Great Mackerel of Holiness, it was worse!!! It was just ... SO BUSY; and no way to turn anything off! Gadgets and gizmos galore and everything wanting your attention all at once and always wondering which desktop layer you're currently interacting with - desktop or widget? - was just too much for me. Your mileage may vary.

I've made use of XFCE, in the past, and have really, really, well and truly TRIED to like it. There's lots to like about it. Except that I just don't. I can't really explain why. I really dislike the default file manager, but even after switching to a file manager I DO like, I still don't like XFCE. It doesn't fit me. Your mileage may vary.

Once upon a time, I did much drooling over the Enlightenment GUI. In those days, e16 was considered stable. It was glorious and lovely and whizzbang and ... just didn't work very well. e17 was in alpha and was even MORE glorious and whizzbang and lovely. Despite the great strides it has made recently, it still just isn't polished enough for my long-term needs in a GUI. Your mileage may vary.

The interface for MacOS X is just a glitzy reskin of NextStep and it was good. I was Mac guy for longer than I've been a Linux guy. Really, I still am a Mac guy; I'm just too poor to buy one when my Linux computer does it all at a fraction of the cost. Enter GNUstep. I tried to get GNUstep to work ... and just couldn't it. It's not broken and everything that's implemented works well enough. It's just not close enough to a finished product to be very useable. Someday, maybe it will be. It would be super-cool to have my Linux or BSD computer be binary compatible with Mac software.

Back on topic: Unity vs. Gnome3
I played a little with unity last year when I bought my netbook. Then, it was a neat idea and I might have stuck with it except it crashed all the time and I couldn't find anything. I promptly switched to Gnome2 with no looking back. That was then.

Unity will now be the default user interface for the next release of Ubuntu: 11.04 Natty Narwhal. I'm currently an Ubuntu user (because it meets my needs and administration is relatively easy. YMMV.) So, downloading the Beta1 release of Natty, I ended up burning the ISO to CD because my cheap laptop can't hardware accelerate graphics in a virtual machine. Booting from CD, I get placed into the Unity environment. Very pretty. Wait, why doesn't the launchbar on the left work? How and where do I find the system configuration dialogs? Where are my files? Why do I have to use the dumb search for EVERYTHING??? That's just dumb. I usually know where in my user file directory I place my files. My computer files are much, much better organized than the rest of my life. This is awful. I just can't find anything.
That didn't even last 10 minutes. Yuck. NEXT!

For the same reasons, I had to boot from CD a disk image of Fedora with the latest official preview of Gnome3. Experience beauty. Omigosh, this interface is simply sexy. I can find the file manager and navigating the file structure is unchanged. Indeed, the default file manager is still Nautilus. All the admin stuff can be found, along with the rest of the applications, most of which have been updated and streamlined or feature enhanced or both. AND search is every bit as easy as with Unity. THIS the GUI of my near future.

I don't know if Gnome3 will be officially supported under the new Ubuntu. I imagine it will, but what if it's not? Well, I've been contemplating a switch to BSD, but BSD is very KDE-centric and it will probably be quite awhile before Gnome3 is stable over there. There are other Linux options, though, some of which I quite like. There would be some minor adjustment to admin interfaces and system file structure and the like, but I can deal with that.

Gnome 3.0 is sexy. Gnome2 is presently my GUI of choice. I see no reason to leave Gnome for some upstart just because some corporation decided they didn't want to.

Incidentally, the help files for Unity betray some Gnome3 roots. :)

Booger Flinging

2011-04-01T10:29:00.000-08:00

A former lover was complaining about her manager at work and this song snippet slid between my ears. I feel I must share.

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone this behavior in the workplace unless you plan to quit right that instant and, furthermore, have no objection to being escorted out by security and possibly being charged criminally with vandalism.

♫Flinging boogers on your wall wouldn't bother me at all.It comes to me in dreams you might call "fantasy."A booger hanging on your wall might amuse me.♫

You can hear me sing it at http://www.paraplegicracehorse.net/BoogersOnTheWall.mp3

Barton Skiff, stage two

2011-03-03T18:13:00.000-09:00

Wood! Wood! Nine pretty, lovely, beautiful sheets of AB Exterior plywood (couldn't justify $80/sheet for marine grade. Poo.)

13.5 hours later, in several small shifts, there are nine sheets of ply marked with cut lines to make boat parts. Yay! :)

Some notes: Contrary to my intentions, I did not change the width of the engine well. It is the stock 14" width. This does a couple things for me. It allows me room for a big, big propeller or Kort thrust-nozzle. Bigger prop, yes, means bigger motor. I hope to load this thing so heavily with fish that it sinks to the gunwales. A dinky little 5hp won't defeat the river current if the boat is that heavily loaded. A 15hp might, but a 25hp probably will. I'll likely end up with a 10hp and put a Kort nozzle on it, but we'll see what Craigslist has to offer...

The other cool thing about leaving the engine well the stock width is that I don't have to mess with resizing the aft decks. I drew them to size according to the published coordinates and expect them to fit nicely. I will, however, have to widen the arched opening in the stern board, but that's not a problem and already measured and marked, though I will initially cut to the stock dimensions and then resize at assembly time.

Okay, these photos have individual captions in my Barton Skiff album at Picasaweb. They don't exactly speak for themselves, but I had to include a little eyecandy, right?

By the way, I consider this to be a really sloppy job, lofting these. There are undoubtedly going to be dimensional difficulties when I begin assembly because I intend - yes, purposefully - to compound the sloppiness in my cutting procedure. The goal is to have parts that are too big so that I can shave or sand down instead of try to fill out. Time will tell how well this works.

Next up: finding some sawhorses I trust and then cut the parts out of the ply. Not long to 3d!

Barton Skiff, stage one

2011-01-25T16:59:00.002-09:00

In the effort of getting going on this commercial fishing venture, a boat needs to be constructed. I have initially settled on the 16' Barton Skiff designed by Gavin Atkin (available free from his blog, InTheBoatshed.net). Mine may well be the first hull actually built, so there's no history to the design which is a little worrisome, but not a real deterrent.

First things first: build a model of the boat to see how all the pieces go together and check that everything appears sound. To that end, I've taken the original lofting drawings and assembled them into card stock components. I have assumed that the drawings are already to scale and that each component is separately butted to its mate, rather than whole panels getting butt-joined prior to cutting. What follows is a log of the build process.

Graphics work:

The first task was extracting the graphics from the PDF files. Each file was imported into GIMP where the upper copy of the parts was copied and turned into a separate file. The files were then imported into Scribus for print layout and exported to a new multi-page PDF. I goofed around trying to vectorize and scale everything different, but finally settled on just leaving sizes and such untouched and just getting the graphics to card stock.

Total time: 90 min. (including goofy vector stuff; effective time about 40 minutes)

Print and assembly:

The file was then printed and cutting begun; about 70 minutes. Now, we get the pretty pictures. :)

Next, the double-thickness (representing the 1/2-inch ply) and/or long pieces are laminated and joined. This took another 30 minutes, plus about 20 minutes to let the lamination dry.

Begin assembly

This project was mainly done as a methodical test. That is to say, I'm not trying for precision or beauty or even just the fun of assembling a paper model. If that were the case, I would have chosen something inherently more beautiful. No, I am doing this to find any potential trouble spots I might run into when the build this full scale in much more expensive wood.

You can see, I thought the appropriate way to begin was to attach the bottom and sides first to the sternplate and then tack together at the bow before then tacking the remaining seams together. I now think this is not the best way to do it. I now think the proper method is to join the sternplate to the bottom and then stitch each side to the sternplate and bottom. Then tack each upper chine to the sternplate and lower sides. I think I would wait to stitch the bow edges together until I could include the bow stiffener in the resulting joint. This will seriously complicate taping everything at the bow (on the inside) but will make that joint ever so much more solid.

You can already see a trouble spot, yes? See the hole for the motor well through the bottom and corresponding slot in the sternplate? Those two should be of equal width. I emailed Gavin about it and he said that's one of the dynamic bits of the design. You need to know how big the prop on your engine is. The width of the slots should be set equal to the diameter of your prop, plus two inches (one inch either side), for maximum efficiency. If you don't know your propeller diameter, you should probably size the slot based on the average diameter of a 5hp outboard, since that's the biggest size motor the design was intended for. Alternatively, it should be wide enough for your motor mount, whichever is bigger.

On the right, you see where I slotted all the crossmembers. These slot positions weren't on my printed graphics. While they are indicated in one of the plan drawings, you should not rely on that drawing for your own boat since the long, longitudinal stringers also form the motor well sides, so the separation of your stringers will vary. Of course, you can modify to your heart's content, but that seems to be the way it was all intended.

The left image is a test-fit. If you zoom a bit, you can see that the piece marked Frame-2 doesn't fit. I believe I mentioned that I did not do any work to ensure these graphics were properly scaled or otherwise dimensionally accurate? Remember that. However...

During the lofting process, it appears that frame points (ply sheet 7) a and b closely correspond to bottom-board points (ply sheet 1) J and G. Frame points are 37 7/8 inches apart, while bottom points are 35 1/2 inches apart. Now, Gavin states pretty clearly in his build instructions that you should be prepared to deal with irregularities with regard to the fit of the framing. However, I'm pretty sure that this is not what was intended. On the other hand, it's better to have to cut down this slightly oversized piece than try to add material, eh what? :)

Here are the frames glued in place. As you can see, frame 2 fits nicely after narrowing the bottom edge. It now looks downright boat-y.

Here's two views of the final assembly. You can see how sloppy the build is but, again, this was a process-discovery build rather for some other purpose. I still think it looks pretty good. Notice the two parts left out. The triangular piece appears to be a duplicate of the breasthook. This would make sense given the position of the breasthook in the "waste" material of the motor well on plywood panel 1 (bottom board). If you narrow the well, the breasthook piece will no longer fit and, thus, this duplicate. Very sensible; thank you, Gavin.

The other piece is shown in one of the perspective drawings and belonging underneath the stern seat, somehow. It's not slotted to fit with the longitudinal stringers and it's not the same height as the other under-seat components, so I'm not quite sure what to think beyond, "It's not a necessary component, anyway. Let's just not use it." Perhaps Gavin will post an explanation in the comments section or maybe one of you can figure out. If you do, please share.

The forward seat top had to be substantially resized (probably losing close to 2" in all dimensions if this were full-scale) in order to fit. The central seat, as you can see if you zoom, is too narrow to span the boat's beam and I had to trim some from the the length, that is: the fore-aft direction, to get it to fit between the frames. Again, I made no attempt at dimensional accuracy when printing and it's so much better to be cutting material away rather than trying to add new. In the case of the short seat, though, ... well, it wouldn't be hard to rig up a support projecting inward from the sides.

Given that I made no attempt at dimensional accuracy when printing, I'm pretty happy with how most parts fit together by default. That makes the anomalies stand out. Gav, if you're reading this, you might doublecheck those dimensions. On the other hand, I'm aware of one other person who has built this as a model; in wood. To my knowledge, there were no mentions of dimensional inaccuracies, so this could all lay at my own feet.

Total build time: about 8 hours, much of which was actually spent cursing at my improvised glue-tabs.

Total project time: about 9.5 hours, well spent.

Some parting thoughts:

The boat designer recommends building a model before tackling the real thing, full size, in wood. I cannot highly enough second that recommendation. You will find more places than you might have initially thought which will give you trouble at full scale if you haven't first built a model and pondered your construction method. Also, since very very few boats are ever built exactly as designed, building a model before the real thing will help solidify your thoughts on what can and what should not be changed; and how to do the changes, if any.

Remember, measure about twelve times, cut once, and cut on the outside of the line.

Tucson Shootings

2011-01-13T09:15:00.000-09:00

Clearly, I'm a much more callous individual than most; but so is that jerk, Barrack Obama, who decided to turn a memorial service into a political pep rally.

While this whole shooting thing is a tragic happenstance, I still wonder why it has escalated above and beyond its scope? The families, witnesses and (to a lesser extent) professionals involved are certainly feeling quite a load of emotional duress - which can only be aggravated by the additional attention from millions of largely un-affected people and, particularly, all the stupid news cameras being shoved their faces.

Beyond the realm of emotional claptrap, those killed or injured will require replacement, in their professional capacity, at great time and expense. Meanwhile, their colleagues will have to pick up the extra work load. Again, how does national scrutiny improve this process?

While it is a good thing for the rhetoric to be tempered (not that it really needs it), the additional fall-out will be increased pressure by an over-REactive minority of both legislators and lay public to further restrict our rights to bear arms and communicate our thoughts in a public venue. Is a small measure of, likely fleeting, rhetorical temperance enough to justify the additional fall-out?

More thoughts on web design

2010-12-23T14:39:00.000-09:00

I've been having more thoughts on www content creation and management, lately. I decided that I really don't much like the cms I'm using for two of the sites I manage (the main ParaplegicRacehorse.net site [nearly bare since a database recovery failed after being hacked] and the Glacier Taxicab site.) I'm also having misgivings over the use of Google Sites for my World Beehive Project site. I've used WordPress, LightNEasy, and Joomla; and experimented with Drupal and dozens of others. I've hand-coded in both tag and text editors and I've goofed around with so-called WYSIWYG editors. Nothing seems to fit the bill just right. On the other hand, all this fiddling about has allowed me to fine-tune my desires a little.

The trouble with hand coding sites, whether it be in a text editor or most WYSIWYG systems, is not the editing. It's the management. Say I add a new page to my site. That's not so hard to do and doesn't take much longer than it would to just compose the prose and link the mediafiles, right? Wrong! Now, I have to figure out how my page is to be linked to from the rest of the site; else how is it to be found by people who might want to read it? This requires editing at least one other file and every other file, if I want it linked in my main navigation section. Now, that's not so bad for a site with 5-10 pages, but what if my site has lots of pre-existing content? It rapidly gets cumbersome and time consuming to make all those edits, each of which is also a potential error in either placement of the tags or in typographical syntax.

Content management software to the rescue? The trouble web-based CMS software is ... it's a hosted script on the web that reads a database (which you can't read easily) and all the editing is done via a web browser and and and ad nauseum. They all have failings. Most of the "big boys" are ridiculously hard to theme - as are many of the smaller cmses -, have convoluted architecture, umteen million plugins half of which are either depricated or have overlapping and mutually incompatible feature sets, and so on. Most take up a large amount of your hosting space, though this really isn't such a big deal in this age of $5/mo for "unlimited" space. Most also require a database of some sort, which is a big source of frustration if you ever have to do any trobuleshooting. The single biggest failure? NONE; not even one, output static and ordinary HTML. Every page-access invokes a script, which creates a [normally imperceptable, but not insignificant] server lag. Oh, and just TRY to find an offline CMS that doesn't cost you a fortune in steep learning curve and/or cash outlay.

So, what are my requirements? Basically, it needs to pretty much do what WordPress or Drupal do, but output static HTML pages. Sort of. Ideally:

Single source of edit for duplicate elements (like css, navbars, headers, footers and scripts). Each of these can then be embedded in the pages that need them at output time. They should each also be able to have embedded elements in them, creating a bit of an embedding heirarchy.
Allows me to use the editor(s) of my choice. Sometimes, I might want to edit in an ordinary text editor, or a word processor, or an HTML tag editor or even a WYSIWIG editors.
Allows for relatively dynamic (blog or news type) as well as more static (articles and stuff) site structure.
Style/themed in standard HTML+CSS
Outputs static HTML. - Most sites, mine included, do not need to have our content dynamically linked and pages generated with each new http request. Leave that to sites that need it like cnn.com or nytimes.com. Most scripts which I might need can be treated as the cgi.
Output conforms to current web-standards in DTD, DOM, etc.
Automatic creation and maintenance of xml files such as rss/atom feeds and sitemaps.
Sensible defaults for .htaccess file(s).

These are not tall demands and should be easily filled. Yet, I'm having a very hard time finding a toolchain that works. I have found a few candidates, though, and there's another idea along these same lines that I intend to write about, too. These are just some food for thoughts. I'm open to suggestions on softwares that meet these requirements. Comment lines are open.

Curious spam e-mail

2010-10-01T11:45:00.000-08:00

I found this in my e-mail inbox, today:

from Jeff Luther [bxstfnyd98@hotmail.com]
Sent at 06:50 (GMT+08:00). Current time there: 3:16 AM. ✆
to [removed by blog-author]
date Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 06:50
subject handheld vhf marine radio - $100 (seward)
mailed-by craigslist.org

** CRAIGSLIST ADVISORY --- AVOID SCAMS BY DEALING LOCALLY
** Avoid: wiring money, cross-border deals, work-at-home
** Beware: cashier checks, money orders, escrow, shipping
** More Info: http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams.html


guitarist unrefreshed bothering degeneracies ceremonious packaging fealty extractable doyen titans winking 

70124578zDOYjt3DP


this message was remailed to you via: [removed by blog author]

The goofy bunch of numbers towards the bottom is a link to who-knows-where; I didn't follow it.

This spammer must have found my Craigslist listing, clicked the respond link, and entered this nonsense. While I suppose it COULD be automated, is this really a productive way to send spam? Really?

Do note that I am publishing the e-mail address of the spammer, just on the off-chance that somebody wishes to, of their own accord and under no influence from me, place a nasty little surprise in his/her in-box. The hotmail account (considered disposable by so many spammers) is probably abandoned by now, anyway.