Hi Greg Rubin of
Allied Titanium. (long time admirer of all your posts. always good quality posts worth reading.)
You guys would be very attractive if you were a one stop shop,if you made sure that you could deliver every single part needed to rig a yacht
mast, every single bolt, swageless fork, and tang.
On the web site there is always something missing. it would take forever to rig a 20 meter yacht mast, and with no guarantee of success.
and you don't have metric. and then missing prices. CALL us instead. even then we don't know if you guys can actually deliver. ie CAN you deliver every single part needed to rig a yacht mast, every single swageless fork, and tang and complete metric turnbuckle? in my experience no. there is always something missing.
"grossly exaggerating the failure speed of 316SS"
every single thing i wrote comes straight from Google. you too can find out all of this very easily, but you will never do it unless you have the motivation.
since we both have Google, the only difference between us must be the motivation to put in the hours of reading.
Lagoon4us
i also am using 316 bolts exactly as you prepared them, it's a good method. (only i also give them a hot sodium hydroxide for 2 hours, then rinse, then hot citric acid for 2 hours first though, and then coated in
epoxy.)
and i also expect no problems.
i am also just like you using heaps of 316 on my boat. 316 flat bar, round bar, pipe, tube, angle, sheet, plate,
plumbing and valves; the reason i'm using it is because it's the cheapest that will do the job.
but no underwater bolts, and not for chainplates or anything touching the mast. it will not do the job here.
i presume you read the article that came after your post and now understand about how extremely damaging cyclic loads in chlorine are to 316, but by having very stiff steel hulls you luckily managed to eliminated all of it, but 99% of other people don't have steel hulls.
noelex 77
"I don't quite share your passion for the inadequacy of 316 rigging."
i understand perfectly where you are. your brain is soaking in the soothing and delicious warmth bath of capitalist
marketing. swimming blissfully in a sea of ignorance. you are very lucky.
you have no chance of understanding true reality unless you do the work yourself - as there is far too much inertia in all the years of 316 knowledge inside your
head for 5 minutes of reading to overcome.
me? i love MacDonalds. they provide a valuable
service to the community, and nobody can doubt this.
but i also Googled images "dismasted". endless misery. endless thousands of people being very very sad.
"Can you advise of some sutable suppliers? What are the costs?"
"The only drawback of the better SS seems cost and availability. Until will get some answers on this it does not matter how technically superior it is. It is still not an option that can be used."
to quote me;
there is no chance of ever getting never fail alloy fittings and
rope. the numbers are too small.
so if you want them, you'll have to have them made by an engineering firm.
any engineering firm will do this for you, in any one of ten thousand different alloys, as this is exactly what small engineering firms do for a living.
jongleur "a standing ovation? "
thank you.
Mr B - please choose one. as i can't understand you.
Answer 1
you are perfectly correct. 316 IS used with hot fresh
water. 316 is great in fresh water. i would use it in fresh water.
and there is even yield data suitable for design for 316 pressure vessels presented in Appendix 1, Picture 6, but you never read this picture, or you would have understood, and so would not have posted.
Appendix 1, Picture 2 clearly says on it
salt water, and the verbiage was about sailing in the tropics, but you never read the picture, which came directly from the scientists who actually made the 316 you were using, or you would have understood, and so not have posted.
you couldn't be bothered to read the pictures?
yet could be bothered to comment? everybody else understood the statement was not fresh water, but water with chlorine in it. Chlorine makes an astounding difference to 316 failing.
Answer 2
you clearly are not following the conversation.
and so there is clearly no motivation to understand.
can i suggest that motivation to succeed in understanding this matter is the entire key.
if you have no motivation, then there is no real interest, and so you will not read, and so you will not understand.
Answer 3
Salt is chlorine.
Chlorine ions are different from fresh water. it's a catalyst. 100ppm to destroy 316 ain't much.
Hydrochloric acid is an example of chloride ions. Try putting some
salt water and some hydrochloric acid on some mild steel. Leave them. One is faster than the other, but the result is exactly the same.
In Dutch HCl translates as
marine acid air.
European alchemists first called hydrochloric acid spirits of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloride
how highly motivated you are is the entire key to understanding all the reading above.
to have made such mistakes makes it SEEM as though you are far less motivated than the others here who clearly did the reading, and understood everything perfectly.
chlorine is a catylyst. 100ppm in a crevice is all that is needed to destroy 316.
i suggest this subject is perfectly clear to people who are interested.
we are talking about 316 yacht mast rigging fittings in salt water, in hot midday sun, at the equator, undergoing cyclic load cycles, in chloride ions, at 35000 ppm, at around 60 degrees Celcius.
chlorine is a catylyst. 100ppm in a crevice is all that is needed to destroy 316.
Answer 4
try clicking on a picture - they get bigger if you do that (i need to tell my mum stuff like that all the time)
Answer 5
i don't know what else to say. If i should have said "in SALT water, at 35000ppm, at a specific temperature, after so many load cycles" qualifying every single noun so lengthily would be astoundingly pedantic and unreadable. Nobody else was confused. So i don't understand your post at all. Real 316 engineering yield data suitable for design for pressure vessels was actually presented before your post. Appendix 1, Picture 6.
There is NO published engineering suitable data for design for use in chlorine, because that is just so silly.
this is what i thought you said, and i answered as best as i could. but i don't think you are even remotely interested in the topic. you've made no effort to understand or follow the conversation at all. i won't answer again.
Maine Sail
my apologies. you are in the right and i am in the wrong.
"If you had "hot linked" to them that's a different story, still mine located on my site, but you did not. You took them, hosted them elsewhere, and used them to try and make your point."
did you know it is much faster, quicker, and easier to do things exactly as you suggest?
and this is exactly what i tried to do using the this
forums "post reply", as obviously, that is so much quicker, simpler and easier.
but when i tried, several times, this forum
software refuses to let you do this. that feature, though appearing, has been disabled by the forum administrators.
try it your self right now.
see?
you obviously deserve credit for your pictures.
all i can do is offer an apology.
i understand my opinions of what capitalism demands from companies to stay in business may be upsetting to guys actually doing the hard work, actually producing the goods.
much easier to be a fat well fed whinger like me, an armchair communist fully intent on getting all the brilliant toys i can from companies like yours, all the time while complaining with a mouth stuffed full of cake.
i admit it's much easier to comment from the sidelines than to actually be in business myself.
as for the "point", i hope you understand the failure mechanism was Stress
Corrosion Cracking. not old age, malnutrition, lack of
inspection etc.
SCC is the heart of the matter, is how all 316 rigging fittings fail in salt water, and is exactly how your fittings failed.
A General Apology
to Corporations, businesses, riggers, salesmen, and business people in general etc.
guys,
a well known problem with academics is they focus on too small an area, and ignore reality outside the area of focus.
it has dawned on me that i lumped capitalism as a socioeconomic paradigm and business people in general together, and delt harshly with the stupidity of capitalism in general. Normal business people are perhaps feeling tarred with the same brush, and this was not my intent.
so;
i apologise to all business people in general that may think this.
were this a paper, i would have made it much clearer that only capitalism as a socioeconomic paradigm squeezing all the time downwards in quality was to blame, and that normal business peeps just have to play along to survive, and that it is the governments job, not theirs, to pass laws demanding minimum standards be met, and that this area is one of the very few remaining unregulated industries.
i understand you business guys are just normal peeps trying to get along, and are yourself at the mercy of the demands of capitalism, the same as the rest of us.
i don't consider any business person at fault for staying alive in a fun job he loves. there is no blame, except on the demands capitalism makes. this is just how the world is.
i suggest all riggers work to the best of their ability, and in good faith.
but despite these shortcomings I do agree with the author of my nurological assessment, that 316 bolts underwater (where water has access to the bolt) are not a good choice.
Linear Mode
Vendor Spotlight
Chevy Camaro Forum
Ford Mustang Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum
Volkswagen Touareg Forum
Land Rover Defender Forum
