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/

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.

wrote:

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


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?


Not full salt this far up the Chesapeake, though it's fairly high
content. Under certain circumstances the growth can be worse than salt:
One year, we moored the previous boat in 1-3' of still water; just
enough to float the boat at the lower low tides. Got nearly 2" of growth
on new paint by the end of June. Was a particularly warm season and the
water by the shore was positively hot. I believe that was the year we
measured 90 degree surface temps in mid May. At least we don't get zebra
mussels.

--
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/

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:07:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
.. At least we don't get zebra
mussels.

yeah...welcome to my world...They are mainly a hassle for freshwater
intakes and so on. Remarkably, at least on the superficial level, they
have "cleaned" up Lake Ontario's water remarkably in the sense that
they've sucked up so much biomass out of the water that the clarity of
the water off Toronto is now quite impressive.

I believe this has led to the rediscovery of several near-shore
wrecks, simply because you can see, on calm days, straight down
fifteen feet or so to the sandy bottom.

This was unheard of even 10 years ago around here. Of course, the
local minnows and other small fish are suffering from the dearth of
zooplankton. The accidental introduction of the the Caspian goby...a
particularly voracious little *******...hasn't helped.

So we are presented with a visibly cleaner lake bereft of important
native species: whether this is in sum good or bad remains to be seen.
Personally, I can now more easily locate the tools I drop over the
side at dock...that's about it for me.

R.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:07:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
.. At least we don't get zebra
mussels.

yeah...welcome to my world...They are mainly a hassle for freshwater
intakes and so on. Remarkably, at least on the superficial level, they
have "cleaned" up Lake Ontario's water remarkably in the sense that
they've sucked up so much biomass out of the water that the clarity of
the water off Toronto is now quite impressive.

I believe this has led to the rediscovery of several near-shore
wrecks, simply because you can see, on calm days, straight down
fifteen feet or so to the sandy bottom.

This was unheard of even 10 years ago around here. Of course, the
local minnows and other small fish are suffering from the dearth of
zooplankton. The accidental introduction of the the Caspian goby...a
particularly voracious little *******...hasn't helped.

So we are presented with a visibly cleaner lake bereft of important
native species: whether this is in sum good or bad remains to be seen.
Personally, I can now more easily locate the tools I drop over the
side at dock...that's about it for me.

R.

wrote:

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


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?


Not full salt this far up the Chesapeake, though it's fairly high
content. Under certain circumstances the growth can be worse than salt:
One year, we moored the previous boat in 1-3' of still water; just
enough to float the boat at the lower low tides. Got nearly 2" of growth
on new paint by the end of June. Was a particularly warm season and the
water by the shore was positively hot. I believe that was the year we
measured 90 degree surface temps in mid May. At least we don't get zebra
mussels.

--
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/

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.