"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:32:41 -0400, DSK wrote:
Kind of makes me wonder... why haven't we seen any tungsten keel bulbs
in really hi-dollar boats, like say for example the America's Cup?

===============================

It's written into the sail racing rules that you can't use any ballast
material with a density greater than lead. That rule was implemented
back in the 70s or early 80s to head off several designs that planned
to use depleted uranium as a keel material.

Open 60's do use tungsten bulbs (or at least tungsten ingots embedded into
lead bulbs because it is so hard to machine the tungsten). One of the "Pen
Duick" boats DID use U-238 in the keel.

I figure if you have a big enough Open 60 budget you just use gold. Far
more dense and you can always take it off after the race and re-sell it for
about what you paid for it. Of course if you're like most Open 60's you
would have that risk of loosing the keel or bulb


--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)

I think tungsten is good for building boats, because of it´s high
melting point it will protect my boat against underwater vulcanos and
fire-breathing sea-dragons.

Anyone experienced with tungsten-boats?

Build it with wood.
Save the tungsten for the sawblades and router cutters.

"Carl Dau" wrote in message
m...
I think tungsten is good for building boats, because of it´s high
melting point it will protect my boat against underwater vulcanos and
fire-breathing sea-dragons.

Anyone experienced with tungsten-boats?

Carl Dau trolls:

Anyone experienced with tungsten-boats?

I actually started pricing up a tungsten bulb for a boat. About 9,000 lbs.
NOBODY had that much lying around, and by the time I finished calling round all
the suppliers, the price had nearly doubled. My theory was that they were all
calling each other looking for more, nad the old "supply and demand" thing
kicked in.
Believe me, we eventually built the whole boat, with conventional ballast, for
half of what the bulb would have cost.

The only way to go with shaping would have been to make sintered disks and bolt
them together. This may not be so easy for a hull, and the weight (50% MORE
than lead by volume) makes it unacceptable for most uses.

Good troll, though.... ;-P

Steve

Carl Dau trolls:
Anyone experienced with tungsten-boats?



Stephen Baker wrote:
I actually started pricing up a tungsten bulb for a boat. About 9,000 lbs.
NOBODY had that much lying around, and by the time I finished calling round all
the suppliers, the price had nearly doubled. My theory was that they were all
calling each other looking for more, nad the old "supply and demand" thing
kicked in.
Believe me, we eventually built the whole boat, with conventional ballast, for
half of what the bulb would have cost.

And the tools to shape it would have added considerably to the cost.


The only way to go with shaping would have been to make sintered disks and bolt
them together. This may not be so easy for a hull, and the weight (50% MORE
than lead by volume) makes it unacceptable for most uses.

Kind of makes me wonder... why haven't we seen any tungsten keel bulbs
in really hi-dollar boats, like say for example the America's Cup? There
was one boat with a fancy keel including a mercury column, so that the
center of gravity could be raised for light air. That must have been pricey.

DSK

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:32:41 -0400, DSK wrote:
Kind of makes me wonder... why haven't we seen any tungsten keel bulbs
in really hi-dollar boats, like say for example the America's Cup?

===============================

It's written into the sail racing rules that you can't use any ballast
material with a density greater than lead. That rule was implemented
back in the 70s or early 80s to head off several designs that planned
to use depleted uranium as a keel material.

No problem for cruising boats however :-) The DU is readily
available but I believe you need a permit to buy it.

Wayne.B wrote:
It's written into the sail racing rules that you can't use any ballast
material with a density greater than lead. That rule was implemented
back in the 70s or early 80s to head off several designs that planned
to use depleted uranium as a keel material.

Sure, but that's just for you & me. The big bucks guys make their own
rules. The America's Cup and the IACC pretty much use the rules they
like and ignore the rest. I suspect that given what Stephen B. said,
keel bulbs of tungsten or osmium are simply too expensive & troublesome
even for them. After all, just because you have $70 million to toss away
on a sailboat race, doesn't mean you can spend an unreasonable percent
of the budget just on the keel materials & tooling....

America3 (cubed) had an adjustable column of mercury in her keel for at
least some of the trial races, may have used it in the Cup match for all
I know (and stuff like this is not usually discussed publicly, although
the really good stuff gets to be an open secret). I bet the EPA would
not have liked it, regardles of what the IYRU thinks!

Fresh BReezes- Doug King

Many classes of boat now have it writted in the rules.. something like...
"no materials of a specific gravity greater than lead..to be used in any
part of the vessel."

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Carl Dau trolls:
Anyone experienced with tungsten-boats?



Stephen Baker wrote:
I actually started pricing up a tungsten bulb for a boat. About 9,000
lbs.
NOBODY had that much lying around, and by the time I finished calling
round all
the suppliers, the price had nearly doubled. My theory was that they
were all
calling each other looking for more, nad the old "supply and demand"
thing
kicked in.
Believe me, we eventually built the whole boat, with conventional
ballast, for
half of what the bulb would have cost.

And the tools to shape it would have added considerably to the cost.


The only way to go with shaping would have been to make sintered disks
and bolt
them together. This may not be so easy for a hull, and the weight (50%
MORE
than lead by volume) makes it unacceptable for most uses.

Kind of makes me wonder... why haven't we seen any tungsten keel bulbs
in really hi-dollar boats, like say for example the America's Cup? There
was one boat with a fancy keel including a mercury column, so that the
center of gravity could be raised for light air. That must have been
pricey.

DSK

"James" freed themself from bondage, long
enough to scribble:

"no materials of a specific gravity greater than lead..to be used in any
part of the vessel."

Hmmmmmm!

Then they can't impose this literally!

Hi

"James" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Many classes of boat now have it writted in the rules.. something like...
"no materials of a specific gravity greater than lead..to be used in any
part of the vessel."

A decade ago, somone was banned using Uranium 238 in some american cup .
Wolfram is way to expensive and difficult to cast , being it's melting
temperture round some 3500 deg.C. --------- acturly this is the reson it
was used in light bulbs ,as even white glowing it will not melt.

P.C.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/boxes-4.jpg