How terrible is it to run a mast cable not in a conduit?

[jmschmidt]

I guess the guys weighing in on this issue don't know what the zip-tie method for silencing wiring in the mast is. Super heavy weight zip-ties every three feet in groups of three or four with tails left slightly longer that the inside radius of the mast section works well. Conduit, if not secured every several feet to the inside of the mast will make even more noise than unsecured wire.

[Pelagic]

I guess this is an issue with Alloy Masts and Internal halyards.

I have wooden masts and with 9 cables at different heights on Aft Mast.... and external halyards, they go thru Glands at either end and left free to pull if needed.

No noise issues or chaffing problems with internal shape

Key was to make sure the masthead cables do not weave into the lower ones

[senormechanico]

When I pulled my mast and installed new conduit (and redid some wiring) I drilled and installed pop rivets every two feet, making sure they were the proper length to grab the pvc conduit without leaving too much of a tail inside to mess up the wiring.
I had a pretty full load of wiring after all was done, but no problems several years later.
(fingers crossed)

[bsurvey]

ive pulled out some wires from some the masts. large sponges taped on to the wires every 10 ft, the internal halyards saw through the sponges until they seek their own level.
pretty crude
but seemed to work

[Jeanneau 45.2]

I have a Questus (questusmarine.com) back stay mounted gimbled setup. My 2 cents, what ever system you use to install a radar dome, a hydraulically damped gimbled unit is absolutely required for a sail boat ... without a gimble a narrow radar beam width plus sailboat heel equals a useless radar. If you go back stay mounted, if your back stay is split you are limited in height above the water line (a negative) but can also locate other items (GPS and spare VHF antenna, transom flood light, etc) in what is essentially free real estate (a plus). Can't over emphasize the need for a gimbled mount, whether on the back stay or the mast. Alan

[Briggers]

I need to change the deck light cable on my Puzzle 36 but I can't. It will not move, either from the top or the bottom. My guess is that it is cable tied to all the other cables or probably fixed to them in some other way as the boat was built in 1981.

I have no alternative to drop the mast so will replace all the wiring while it's down. They will be going in a conduit as I might need to replace or add one later and I certainly don't want them slapping in the mast.

[Jim Cate]

My 2 cents, what ever system you use to install a radar dome, a hydraulically damped gimbled unit is absolutely required for a sail boat ... without a gimble a narrow radar beam width plus sailboat heel equals a useless radar.

That's a pretty strong statement, mate! I t hink you will find that it is not true, for there are a lot of yachts with fixed radar mounts (mine, for instance) and those radars are not "useless".

There are differences in vertical beam width in various designs, and differences in how fast the envelope drops off outside of the nominal envelope. Radars with patch type rotots (like our Furuno 1715) tend to have pretty soft cutoffs. Ours works ok up to about 20 degrees of heel, and one does tend to avoid sailing at such angles very much! We've never had an open array radar, and they may be different, but you don't see such on many yachts, do you?

At any rate, while gimballed mounts may look cool, they surely are not neccessary for a functional radar, they are pretty pricey and some have had issues for their owners.

Jim

[Jeanneau 45.2]

Jim, "useless" might have been an exaggeration ... how about "less than optimum"?

I am glad your radar meets your requirements, and I know you have much experience (I only began the full time cruising life this June), but I am confused. My Pathfinder radar has a horizontal beam width of 5.2 degrees and a maximum range of 24 nm. It would seem that the sharpest beam would be desired (maximum range and target discrimination) and that the 'soft cutoff' you reference is actually an undesirable characteristic (providing the unintended benefit of compensating for heal but with the corresponding loss of effective range and target discrimination). I haven't done the geometry calculation (was that cosign or tangent, I wasn't paying attention that day) but intuitively it would seem that dome heel would bad, to the extent that it should be addressed.

While I accept that this is advertising, here is a link to a sketch which I find pretty convincing: Questus Marine radar automatic leveling system prevents target loss when heeling.

I accept that the swivel and hydraulic dampening increase complexity, but like a folding or feathering prop, the benefits (at least for me) outweigh the downsides. Peace out.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Jeanneau 45.2

Jim, I am glad your radar meets your requirements, and I know you have much experience (I only began the full time cruising life this June), but I am confused. My Pathfinder radar has a horizontal beam width of 5.2 degrees and a maximum range of 24 nm. It would seem that the sharpest beam would be desired (maximum range and target discrimination) and that the 'soft cutoff' you reference is actually an undesirable characteristic. I haven't done the geometry calculation (was that cosign or tangent, I wasn't paying attention that day) but intuitively it would seem that dome heel would bad, to the extent that it should be addressed.

While I accept that this is advertising, here is a link to a sketch which I find pretty convincing: Questus Marine radar automatic leveling system prevents target loss when heeling.

I accept that the swivel and hydraulic dampening increase complexity, but like a folding or feathering prop, the benefits (at least for me) outweigh the downsides.

At least we seem to agree that mast mounting is not the way to go.

The characteristic we are discussing is vertical beam width, not horizontal, and it is typically much larger in angle. From memory, the Furuno's is nominally either 12.5 or 15 degrees plus or minus from the centroid. when you add in the fact that it is not a sharp cut-off at that angle, but just a diminishing response, it is not surprising that there is little signal loss at normal heel angles.

Other radars have smaller vertical beam widths: we had an Anritsu, which had a proper little beam shaper rotor, and it's cut off was sharper, but still at around 12-15degrees (some years back, details escape me). And perhaps some models currently sold are even sharper, I do not pretend to know.

But really, I was simply pointing out that your statement that fixed radars were useless was at the least exaggerated, for they are not in my personal experience, and that of many others who share the fixed mounting on their vessels.

Oh... no, we do not agree that mast mounting is a bad thing. I find it to be quite good, and have done so on other vessels. In fact, I moved this one from the stern arch to the mast and have had better performance in my usage since then.

I'm not saying that gimballed mounts are bad, just that they are often not necessary.

Cheers,

Jim

PS Had a look at your advert... not too surprising that Questus shows how necessary their gear is! But even in that sketch, where they show an arbitrary vertical beam width with absolute cutoff angles, if you look closely there is still some horizontal component in their putative beam. Not that it matters, for it is only an "artists conception" kinda sketch.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I've tried to think of a reason why foam peanuts are a bad idea,-----------I got nuthin.

Depends on the peanut. Some are polystyrene, some are starch-based. The starch-based ones are water soluble.

[apneab]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

Depends on the peanut. Some are polystyrene, some are starch-based. The starch-based ones are water soluble.

And hence edible in an emergency. Double duty..