From a strength, corrosion, and functional standpoint:

If it isn't safe with a cap on it, it isn't safe with a seacock and a
hose.

(I'm talking about capping the bronze through hull; not the seacock.)

OTOH there is no way a scarfed out and secondarily bonded plug will be
as resistant to flexure and impact as the original hull. I would
agree that it would be acceptably safe and strong but still not to the
original standards. The capped seacock, especially with seawater and
the electrical path isolated from the inside of the pipe by proper
plugging, would be more reliable than it was originally.

--

Roger Long



"Evan Gatehouse" wrote in message
...
"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

A bronze cap of the same material and schedule will be just as
reliable as the thru hull which is a no back up component.
Filling
the space with something resilient and flexible will exclude
water and
also serve as a plug. I'd much rather depend on this with the
thru
hull and inner nut sandwiching the glass that grinding back the
hull
structure and depending on secondary glass bonds.

I would just leave the seacocks as you suggest except that they
are
gate valves that I'm replacing and relocating at the same time.

--

Roger Long

Roger,

I agree with the other posters. If you read about boats sinking,
it's seldom from secondary bonds popping off. More often than not
it is a seacock failing in some way. I figure you have a number of
failure points with a capped off seacock (cap coming loose,
corrosion of thru-hull, long term failure of caulking (like in 10
years).

I would go so far as to say it would not pass a survey with just a
cap on thru hull.

Evan Gatehouse