Through-hull question
 

I have all Marlon thru-hulls on my Freedom 40/40 and have never had any
problems. And there are no bonding issues to worry about. Freedom also
states that you don't have to worry about the thru-hulls blowing out in
the case of a lightening strike, but I don't know how real that is.
Just something to ponder.

-- Geoff

Glenn Ashmore wrote in
news:gDuDb.5356$JD6.2598@lakeread04:



Doug Dotson wrote:

I don't trust plastic below the waterline. Marelon is
plenty strong but bronze is stronger. I have to install
a few more thru-hulls this spring. I guess I'll have to
do some thinking about it.

I had the same worry before I decided so I tried (as my compulsive
engineer personality requires) to analyze the threat. Corrosion is
not a problem. The main threats of marelon vs bronze are breakage
because of the lower ultimate strength and dimensional stability.
Dimensional stability results in sticking so routine exercising the
valve and lubrication are definitely in order. That is a good idea
for bronze also because chrome on bronze balls can flake and jam and
stainless balls can suffer crevasse corrosion between the seals. That
leaves the strength to be tested. I see 3 potential forces acting on
a flange mounted throughhull. The water pressure from outside for
which the flanges are far over designed, the bending force of the hose
and fittings but the fittings are much weaker than the throughuull and
potential impacts. Side impacts would be the big worry.

I tried to visualize what would cause a significant side impact on a
throughhull, probably in a knock down or roll over and came up with a
battery breaking loose, an anchor stowed loose in the bilge. So I
found an old used Forespar 1 1/2" seacock on ebay, mounted it on a
piece of 1/4" steel plate and whacked it on the side with a 5 lb
sledge. First blow had no effect. Second blow produced a small
crack about 1" long leading from the valve stem. Third blow broke a
bolt flange and lengthened the crack some but it was still well
attached to the throughhull. I have beaten enough bronze castings to
pieces to fit in my crucible furnace that I don't believe a bronze
throughhull would have held up but a little better.

Through-hull question
 

Glenn,

I was just browsing through the WM catalog. A 3/4" Marelon
thruhull is $11.49, bronze is $12.99. A 3/4" Maralon seacock is $37.99,
bronze is $36.99. I don't see the
price of bronze as a major deal. That is unless the
Apollo seacock has some sort of bad rep. The Groco
seacocks are about double the price. Not sure where
the 4X price you suggested comes from? Looks to me
like break even or at the most 2X. I do like the Marelon
inasmuch as electrical problems are eliminated though.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:3GDDb.5377$JD6.2851@lakeread04...


Skip Gundlach wrote:


Ah - very good. You're saying the metal failed while the plastic
didn't?

That's very reassuring. Confirms my expectations that such upgrade is
worthwhile.


I didn't go so far as to say that and I am not about to bash up a $150
bronze seacock to find out. :-) My testing was also more subjective
than a true a scientific examination. It is just that the 1 1/2" marelon
seacock is strong enough to stand up to any potential impact hazzard
that I can think of. The story may be different with a 3/4" seacock but
it will still be close enough to the strength of bronze to be acceptable
to me.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Through-hull question
 

Glenn,

I was just browsing through the WM catalog. A 3/4" Marelon
thruhull is $11.49, bronze is $12.99. A 3/4" Maralon seacock is $37.99,
bronze is $36.99. I don't see the
price of bronze as a major deal. That is unless the
Apollo seacock has some sort of bad rep. The Groco
seacocks are about double the price. Not sure where
the 4X price you suggested comes from? Looks to me
like break even or at the most 2X. I do like the Marelon
inasmuch as electrical problems are eliminated though.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:3GDDb.5377$JD6.2851@lakeread04...


Skip Gundlach wrote:


Ah - very good. You're saying the metal failed while the plastic
didn't?

That's very reassuring. Confirms my expectations that such upgrade is
worthwhile.


I didn't go so far as to say that and I am not about to bash up a $150
bronze seacock to find out. :-) My testing was also more subjective
than a true a scientific examination. It is just that the 1 1/2" marelon
seacock is strong enough to stand up to any potential impact hazzard
that I can think of. The story may be different with a 3/4" seacock but
it will still be close enough to the strength of bronze to be acceptable
to me.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Through-hull question
 

I didn't really consider the Conbraco Apollos. The Groco looks stronger
and my marine repair "subsidiary" can get either for about the same
price but the Forespars are about half when you get into the larger sizes.


Doug Dotson wrote:

Glenn,

I was just browsing through the WM catalog. A 3/4" Marelon
thruhull is $11.49, bronze is $12.99. A 3/4" Maralon seacock is $37.99,
bronze is $36.99. I don't see the
price of bronze as a major deal. That is unless the
Apollo seacock has some sort of bad rep. The Groco
seacocks are about double the price. Not sure where
the 4X price you suggested comes from? Looks to me
like break even or at the most 2X. I do like the Marelon
inasmuch as electrical problems are eliminated though.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:3GDDb.5377$JD6.2851@lakeread04...


Skip Gundlach wrote:



Ah - very good. You're saying the metal failed while the plastic

didn't?

That's very reassuring. Confirms my expectations that such upgrade is
worthwhile.


I didn't go so far as to say that and I am not about to bash up a $150
bronze seacock to find out. :-) My testing was also more subjective
than a true a scientific examination. It is just that the 1 1/2" marelon
seacock is strong enough to stand up to any potential impact hazzard
that I can think of. The story may be different with a 3/4" seacock but
it will still be close enough to the strength of bronze to be acceptable
to me.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com





--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Through-hull question
 

I didn't really consider the Conbraco Apollos. The Groco looks stronger
and my marine repair "subsidiary" can get either for about the same
price but the Forespars are about half when you get into the larger sizes.


Doug Dotson wrote:

Glenn,

I was just browsing through the WM catalog. A 3/4" Marelon
thruhull is $11.49, bronze is $12.99. A 3/4" Maralon seacock is $37.99,
bronze is $36.99. I don't see the
price of bronze as a major deal. That is unless the
Apollo seacock has some sort of bad rep. The Groco
seacocks are about double the price. Not sure where
the 4X price you suggested comes from? Looks to me
like break even or at the most 2X. I do like the Marelon
inasmuch as electrical problems are eliminated though.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:3GDDb.5377$JD6.2851@lakeread04...


Skip Gundlach wrote:



Ah - very good. You're saying the metal failed while the plastic

didn't?

That's very reassuring. Confirms my expectations that such upgrade is
worthwhile.


I didn't go so far as to say that and I am not about to bash up a $150
bronze seacock to find out. :-) My testing was also more subjective
than a true a scientific examination. It is just that the 1 1/2" marelon
seacock is strong enough to stand up to any potential impact hazzard
that I can think of. The story may be different with a 3/4" seacock but
it will still be close enough to the strength of bronze to be acceptable
to me.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com





--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Through-hull question
 

On 15 Dec 2003 16:23:29 GMT, (IamAeolus) wrote:

The reason often given as to why ball valves are not "acceptable" on thru-hulls
is that they lack the support that seacocks have. That support MIGHT be
needed to close them in an emergency and could possible break off (with
disasterous results unless you had some tapered wood plugs handy). Yet many
boats come equipped with properly functioning ball valves. I think the key
here is make sure your ball valves continue to properly function by actuating
them once a month or so and lubricating the top and bottom of the ball at
least annually. If they are working properly, they are probably safe enough.
Certainly safer than a seacock that has not been maintained....

Well, I replaced gate valves with ball cocks from Home Depot here in
the Great Lakes, where we can get away with that sort of thing. I
check them and keep them moving freely in and out of the water (we are
on the hard 5 1/2 months out of 12 in Toronto) but all of them have
properly sized plugs tied to their bases. Wouldn't leave the dock
without 'em.

R.

Through-hull question
 

On 15 Dec 2003 16:23:29 GMT, (IamAeolus) wrote:

The reason often given as to why ball valves are not "acceptable" on thru-hulls
is that they lack the support that seacocks have. That support MIGHT be
needed to close them in an emergency and could possible break off (with
disasterous results unless you had some tapered wood plugs handy). Yet many
boats come equipped with properly functioning ball valves. I think the key
here is make sure your ball valves continue to properly function by actuating
them once a month or so and lubricating the top and bottom of the ball at
least annually. If they are working properly, they are probably safe enough.
Certainly safer than a seacock that has not been maintained....

Well, I replaced gate valves with ball cocks from Home Depot here in
the Great Lakes, where we can get away with that sort of thing. I
check them and keep them moving freely in and out of the water (we are
on the hard 5 1/2 months out of 12 in Toronto) but all of them have
properly sized plugs tied to their bases. Wouldn't leave the dock
without 'em.

R.

Through-hull question
 

wrote:

On 15 Dec 2003 16:23:29 GMT, (IamAeolus) wrote:



The reason often given as to why ball valves are not "acceptable" on thru-hulls
is that they lack the support that seacocks have. That support MIGHT be
needed to close them in an emergency and could possible break off (with
disasterous results unless you had some tapered wood plugs handy). Yet many
boats come equipped with properly functioning ball valves. I think the key
here is make sure your ball valves continue to properly function by actuating
them once a month or so and lubricating the top and bottom of the ball at
least annually. If they are working properly, they are probably safe enough.
Certainly safer than a seacock that has not been maintained....



Well, I replaced gate valves with ball cocks from Home Depot here in
the Great Lakes, where we can get away with that sort of thing. I
check them and keep them moving freely in and out of the water (we are
on the hard 5 1/2 months out of 12 in Toronto) but all of them have
properly sized plugs tied to their bases. Wouldn't leave the dock
without 'em.

Our gate valves were replaced by "marine" ball cocks 11 years ago. Much
later, I found out that the "better" Home Depot ball valves were identical.

BUT there are more-proper "seacock" versions of the ball valves that
bolt to/through the hull that you'll only find at the chandlry. I
changed out our engine intake to one because it's not protected against
hard knocks, but the innards are identical to the ball valves: chromed
brass or copper ball in a brass body (I forget). Thus, we don't bond our
sea cocks.

I don't lube our ball valves, but open and close them every time we
sail. After 10 seasons' use, none show any problems.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Through-hull question
 

wrote:

On 15 Dec 2003 16:23:29 GMT, (IamAeolus) wrote:



The reason often given as to why ball valves are not "acceptable" on thru-hulls
is that they lack the support that seacocks have. That support MIGHT be
needed to close them in an emergency and could possible break off (with
disasterous results unless you had some tapered wood plugs handy). Yet many
boats come equipped with properly functioning ball valves. I think the key
here is make sure your ball valves continue to properly function by actuating
them once a month or so and lubricating the top and bottom of the ball at
least annually. If they are working properly, they are probably safe enough.
Certainly safer than a seacock that has not been maintained....



Well, I replaced gate valves with ball cocks from Home Depot here in
the Great Lakes, where we can get away with that sort of thing. I
check them and keep them moving freely in and out of the water (we are
on the hard 5 1/2 months out of 12 in Toronto) but all of them have
properly sized plugs tied to their bases. Wouldn't leave the dock
without 'em.

Our gate valves were replaced by "marine" ball cocks 11 years ago. Much
later, I found out that the "better" Home Depot ball valves were identical.

BUT there are more-proper "seacock" versions of the ball valves that
bolt to/through the hull that you'll only find at the chandlry. I
changed out our engine intake to one because it's not protected against
hard knocks, but the innards are identical to the ball valves: chromed
brass or copper ball in a brass body (I forget). Thus, we don't bond our
sea cocks.

I don't lube our ball valves, but open and close them every time we
sail. After 10 seasons' use, none show any problems.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Through-hull question
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:35:52 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

wrote:


Our gate valves were replaced by "marine" ball cocks 11 years ago. Much
later, I found out that the "better" Home Depot ball valves were identical.

Yes, those are the ones I've installed.

BUT there are more-proper "seacock" versions of the ball valves that
bolt to/through the hull that you'll only find at the chandlry.

I know, and if I was offshore, I wouldn't consider anything else. In
fact, I'd opt for strum boxes, a single seacock with valves to
elsewhere, and standpipes when feasible. Too many holes in the hull
equals too many potential problems, I think.

I
changed out our engine intake to one because it's not protected against
hard knocks, but the innards are identical to the ball valves: chromed
brass or copper ball in a brass body (I forget). Thus, we don't bond our
sea cocks.

Same here. Don't like the colour pink in a metal G

I don't lube our ball valves, but open and close them every time we
sail. After 10 seasons' use, none show any problems.

Same here. Aren't you in salt, though?

R.