| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Blisters 'n microwaves
I may have talked about this idea before but it was inspired when I was
doing blister repairs on a boat and used a heat gun. The heat gun literally drove water from the hull and it poured out of adjacent blisters so...........Why waste time heating the glass when you really want to heat the water and other polar molecules. Enclose the boat in a cover of aluminized plastic and put a microwave generator inside. The water and other polar molecules in the gel coat would be driven out over a few days. Of course you'd have to keep the power level low enough to not cause arcing near any metal fittings but that should be easy. You might want to score the gelcoat to facilitate the evaporation of the water. Next, you drive thermo-setting resin into the gel coat under pressure or even slowly setting ultra-low viscosity epoxy. Finally a sealer coat. No BS gel coat peeling that fails 80 % of the time. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message oups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? |
Blisters 'n microwaves
Jim:
I do not mean to ignore your questions and apologize if I did. I simply did not understand the question. It may have been obvious to you but I missed it somehow. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message ups.com... Jim: I do not mean to ignore your questions and apologize if I did. I simply did not understand the question. It may have been obvious to you but I missed it somehow. Fair enough. So how are boat loan interest deductions devoted only to the *rich* as you earlier claimed? Even my twenty foot runabout cuddy would have qualified for the credit before I tore out the sink, ice maker and alcohol stove. Regardless, I paid cash for the deal and do not qualify. Do you now understand my point? |
Blisters 'n microwaves
NOW I see. OK, maybe we should simply eliminate all such deductions.
Google Groups is being very balky tonite. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On 2 Jan 2006 19:24:27 -0800, "
wrote: I may have talked about this idea before but it was inspired when I was doing blister repairs on a boat and used a heat gun. The heat gun literally drove water from the hull and it poured out of adjacent blisters so...........Why waste time heating the glass when you really want to heat the water and other polar molecules. ================================================== === What are the other heating possibilities other than microwaves that require shielding? Magnetic resonance device or something similar? |
Blisters 'n microwaves
Even MRI exciting frequencies of sufficient power density to work would
require shielding. Everything requires shielding, it's simply what kind and how much. Do it in a metal building and no prob outside. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
|
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message oups.com... Even MRI exciting frequencies of sufficient power density to work would require shielding. Everything requires shielding, it's simply what kind and how much. Do it in a metal building and no prob outside. I suspect the problem with microwave is that the "cavity" or metal shielded enclosure needs to be tuned to the microwave frequency wavelength, otherwise little heating will take place and the standing wave ratio will destroy the microwave generator. Induction heating? Nope - needs to be a metal. Big ass oven? Maybe - wouldn't need to set the temp too high to dry out water, but might require a long bake. I know! A scanning CO2 chemical laser! You could program it to scan the whole hull, similar to the prop measuring systems, except much higher power. I watched a guy finish the edges of saw cut, 4" thick bluestone by spraying water from a mist spray bottle until the edge surface of the bluestone was saturated, then immediately heating it with an oxygen/acetylene torch. Bluestone is very porous and absorbs the water. The torch then heated the water very rapidly so it boiled and converted to steam before it could drain out of the bluestone. The water basically "exploded" in a micro way, leaving the bluestone edges with a natural, weathered, micro sandblasted appearance. Eisboch |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:30:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Since the water buildup probably occurred over a long period of time via osmosis through tiny pores in the glass gelcoat, wouldn't a rapid dissipation of the water be impossible through those same pores? Would you not end up just "deskinning" the boat, as it were...popping off the gel coat? That is probably a very real concern in my opinion. Turning water into steam can create some very high pressures if entrapped. The best cure is simply not to buy a boat with an osmotic blister problem. I know this flies in the face of the advice of boat salesmen, owners of boats, and others with a stake in the used boat business, but better osmotic acne remain *their* problem, and not yours. Easy to say but the real world is different if you own an older boat. Boats that have never blistered in the past can suddenly develop a crop if conditions change, e.g., water temperature, length of season, etc. On a boat over 4 or 5 years old you really have no recourse with the manufacturer. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
|
Blisters 'n microwaves
Reggie Smithers wrote: chuck, Do you not recommend popping the blisters, allowing the blisters to dry out and applying an epoxy coat? That doesn't sound exotic, and I thought it would be prudent for any boat that is kept in the water. Such a "surface" treatment is about all the trouble the situation really warrants. And anybody who convinces a boater to stick a boat into a "drying tent" and spend $1000's in lay days (or lay weeks) to cure blisters should be ashamed. One of our local yards does a very good job of blister repair. Their process involves a peel job and then the application of a few layers of vinylester laminate under a new barrier coat. They put a lifetime warranty on the process, and in ten years they have had only one or two boats back for a re-do. They are the local exception. Most blister repairs fail. Some sooner than others. The good news is, for the vast majority of blisters there is absolutely no reason beyond cosmetics to deal with them at all. 99% of the time they are out of sight below the waterline. I had a batch of chine blisters that I dealt with two or three bottom paint jobs ago. Just sanded them flat, let them dry for a few hours, faired them out, and slapped on the bottom paint. Cost was less than $100. I fully expect to see those same blisters back again some day (but maybe not)........and if I do I'll spend another $100 to deal with them. That's much better than spending $10,000 or $20,000 or maybe more to deal with them and *still* having them reappear in the future. Delamination, of course, is another and very serious problem. Blistering does not "progress" to delam, although in very rare cases blistering may be an indication of an underlying delam problem. Got delam? You're going to have to deal with it whether you see blisters or not. Got blisters without delam? No big deal. Taking a drastic course to remove them would be like spending $20,000 to have a surgeon remove a benign mole from your butt cheek- it isn't hurting a darn thing and almost nobody will ever see it. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message ups.com... Reggie Smithers wrote: chuck, Do you not recommend popping the blisters, allowing the blisters to dry out and applying an epoxy coat? That doesn't sound exotic, and I thought it would be prudent for any boat that is kept in the water. Such a "surface" treatment is about all the trouble the situation really warrants. And anybody who convinces a boater to stick a boat into a "drying tent" and spend $1000's in lay days (or lay weeks) to cure blisters should be ashamed. One of our local yards does a very good job of blister repair. Their process involves a peel job and then the application of a few layers of vinylester laminate under a new barrier coat. They put a lifetime warranty on the process, and in ten years they have had only one or two boats back for a re-do. They are the local exception. Most blister repairs fail. Some sooner than others. The good news is, for the vast majority of blisters there is absolutely no reason beyond cosmetics to deal with them at all. 99% of the time they are out of sight below the waterline. I had a batch of chine blisters that I dealt with two or three bottom paint jobs ago. Just sanded them flat, let them dry for a few hours, faired them out, and slapped on the bottom paint. Cost was less than $100. I fully expect to see those same blisters back again some day (but maybe not)........and if I do I'll spend another $100 to deal with them. That's much better than spending $10,000 or $20,000 or maybe more to deal with them and *still* having them reappear in the future. Delamination, of course, is another and very serious problem. Blistering does not "progress" to delam, although in very rare cases blistering may be an indication of an underlying delam problem. Got delam? You're going to have to deal with it whether you see blisters or not. Got blisters without delam? No big deal. Taking a drastic course to remove them would be like spending $20,000 to have a surgeon remove a benign mole from your butt cheek- it isn't hurting a darn thing and almost nobody will ever see it. The microwave concept is really a pretty neat idea at first look. An improvement might be to just treat the blisters and surrounding area. No need for a screen room. Just a directional microwave. They do it for termites, just monitor the temperature, to avoid superheated areas, that would explode. use the mw to heat the water up to a simmer. Might even be a good way to check for osmosis. Moisture meter is not going to really check for water behind an area of good gel coat. It can not sense the water, and if it is a density checker, extra resin or glass is going to change the readings. mw the hull and check for hotter spots. Like Chucks blisters. Use the mw to accelerate the drying. Would be cheaper than vacuum drying. A lot less time. Or use it in combination with mw and vacuum drying. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
Don't sand thru the gelcoat if you don't have to, Chuck. Fiberglass isn't waterproof without it. Patch the ground out blisters with Marine Tex or other waterproofing filler. JIMinFL wrote in message ups.com... I had a batch of chine blisters that I dealt with two or three bottom paint jobs ago. Just sanded them flat, let them dry for a few hours, faired them out, and slapped on the bottom paint. Cost was less than $100. I fully expect to see those same blisters back again some day (but maybe not)........and if I do I'll spend another $100 to deal with them. That's much better than spending $10,000 or $20,000 or maybe more to deal with them and *still* having them reappear in the future. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
I'll never do this cuz I have waaaaaaay too many other weird projects.
It came out of a scheme of mine to measure the fluid level in oil wells using microwaves. I have done a lot of looking into blister repair and even have done some of it. What I find is that blister repair is mostly a scam that fails about 80% of the time. As others have pointed out, blisters are really only a cosmetic problem. I have NEVER heard of osmotic blisters causing hull failure on a boat made from woven fiberglass. I HAVE heard of severe problems in hulls made from short strand mats. If anybody has ever heard of a hull failure or accident resulting from Osmotic Blisters, i'd like to hear about it. Thanks David |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JIMinFL wrote: Don't sand thru the gelcoat if you don't have to, Chuck. Fiberglass isn't waterproof without it. Patch the ground out blisters with Marine Tex or other waterproofing filler. JIMinFL I don't know how you would fix a blister without removing the deformed gelcoat. Gelcoat ( essentially a layer of tinted resin) is somewhat porous. You may be thinking of a barrier coat, not the gelcoat. When the term "osmotic blister" is applied, the osmosis is the passage of water through the gelcoat, not through the laminate. Plastic doesn't absorb water, so if there are no voids in an FRP hull it isn't ever going to become "waterlogged". When I refer to "fairing", that's the same process you describe above with the filler. Happy New Year |
Blisters 'n microwaves
My thinking is backward from yours, Chuck. I think of the gel coat as the
layer that is supposed to be waterproof. The laminate may or may not be waterproof depending on how well the layers are saturated with resin. I'm sure if you scrape the gelcoat off something like a BayRay or other mass produced boat, you will have a leak. JIMinFL wrote in message oups.com... JIMinFL wrote: Don't sand thru the gelcoat if you don't have to, Chuck. Fiberglass isn't waterproof without it. Patch the ground out blisters with Marine Tex or other waterproofing filler. JIMinFL I don't know how you would fix a blister without removing the deformed gelcoat. Gelcoat ( essentially a layer of tinted resin) is somewhat porous. You may be thinking of a barrier coat, not the gelcoat. When the term "osmotic blister" is applied, the osmosis is the passage of water through the gelcoat, not through the laminate. Plastic doesn't absorb water, so if there are no voids in an FRP hull it isn't ever going to become "waterlogged". When I refer to "fairing", that's the same process you describe above with the filler. Happy New Year |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JIMinFL wrote: My thinking is backward from yours, Chuck. I think of the gel coat as the layer that is supposed to be waterproof. The laminate may or may not be waterproof depending on how well the layers are saturated with resin. I'm sure if you scrape the gelcoat off something like a BayRay or other mass produced boat, you will have a leak. JIMinFL I don't always agree with David Pascoe on some issues, but I think he has written one of the most informative and easily understood essays on blisters and how they affect a boat. If you check out the illustrations and explanation at this link, you might amend your opinion about gelcoat preventing leaks in a fiberglass hull http://www.yachtsurvey.com/BuyingBlisterBoat.htm |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:
wrote in message roups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:41:23 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:30:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Since the water buildup probably occurred over a long period of time via osmosis through tiny pores in the glass gelcoat, wouldn't a rapid dissipation of the water be impossible through those same pores? Would you not end up just "deskinning" the boat, as it were...popping off the gel coat? That is probably a very real concern in my opinion. Turning water into steam can create some very high pressures if entrapped. The best cure is simply not to buy a boat with an osmotic blister problem. I know this flies in the face of the advice of boat salesmen, owners of boats, and others with a stake in the used boat business, but better osmotic acne remain *their* problem, and not yours. Easy to say but the real world is different if you own an older boat. Boats that have never blistered in the past can suddenly develop a crop if conditions change, e.g., water temperature, length of season, etc. On a boat over 4 or 5 years old you really have no recourse with the manufacturer. Does this happen mostly to boats that are in slips? Are those removed from the water after each use subject to this blistering? -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On 2 Jan 2006 19:44:19 -0800, "
wrote: NOW I see. OK, maybe we should simply eliminate all such deductions. Google Groups is being very balky tonite. Thanks guy! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message oups.com... JIMinFL wrote: My thinking is backward from yours, Chuck. I think of the gel coat as the layer that is supposed to be waterproof. The laminate may or may not be waterproof depending on how well the layers are saturated with resin. I'm sure if you scrape the gelcoat off something like a BayRay or other mass produced boat, you will have a leak. JIMinFL I don't always agree with David Pascoe on some issues, but I think he has written one of the most informative and easily understood essays on blisters and how they affect a boat. If you check out the illustrations and explanation at this link, you might amend your opinion about gelcoat preventing leaks in a fiberglass hull http://www.yachtsurvey.com/BuyingBlisterBoat.htm I read his essay and I don't think that I said anything that needs to be amended. Pascoe did say that both the gelcoat and roving/mat are porous. I don't know if this is true of modern resins but the older boats made of polyester resin were somewhat porous. But not to the point that you would notice significant accumulation of sea water in the bilge. I had an old Reinell once that leaked about 2 quarts a day. It wasn't coming from the engine room nor way forward. It had to be coming from under the cabin sole. I cut an inspection port into the sole and found a spot where water was oozing in drop by drop right at the center of the keel. I didn't see any cracking so I decided to leave it as is until haulout time. After removing several coats of bottom paint I found that the gel coat had been worn off . Probably from repeated beachings at one time. My fix for that was a few layers of cloth and epoxy. I would not let any crack or gouge in gelcoat go unrepaired. Particularly under the water line. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JIMinFL wrote: I would not let any crack or gouge in gelcoat go unrepaired. Particularly under the water line. I think we would agree on that. Particularly since it's almost impossible to crack or gouge *only* the gel coat. :-) Your experience with the leaking keel is a good example. After several groundings, you noticed some water seeping into the bilge through the keelson. The couple of layers and cloth you applied for a fix went well beyond a simple gelcoat repair. I think you could strip all the gelcoat entirely off a boat and it would still float. If the fibers were adequately wetted out with resin, the hull wouldn't even absorb water (or "wick" it around). That seems to be where we disagree. As you know, there are some premium manufacturers who don't even use gelcoat on their fiberglass boats. If the mold is perfect enough, one can get by with paint rather than gelcoat. Gelcoat is an easy workaround for imperfectly finished molds, as it tends to hide various sins while paint tends to magnify them. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
" wrote:
I may have talked about this idea before but it was inspired when I was doing blister repairs on a boat and used a heat gun. The heat gun literally drove water from the hull and it poured out of adjacent blisters so...........Why waste time heating the glass when you really want to heat the water and other polar molecules. Water is non-polar Wayne.B wrote: What are the other heating possibilities other than microwaves that require shielding? Magnetic resonance device or something similar? That'd work. So would a laser. I wonder if playing really awful music, very loud, would drive blisters away? Would that work better if the speakers were inside the boat or outside? DSK |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message oups.com... Your experience with the leaking keel is a good example. After several groundings, you noticed some water seeping into the bilge through the keelson. The couple of layers and cloth you applied for a fix went well beyond a simple gelcoat repair. That isn't exactly what I said, but after removing the bottom paint, the area sans gel coat was smooth and I didn't know if any of the laminations had worn off. Being a belt and suspenders kind of guy, I chose to build the area up a little. I probably could have gotten by painting the spot with epoxy. I think you could strip all the gelcoat entirely off a boat and it would still float. If the fibers were adequately wetted out with resin, the hull wouldn't even absorb water (or "wick" it around). That seems to be where we disagree. Now you are qualifing with "adequately wetted out with resin". Sure some better hulls will be more resistant to water penetration. The cheaper hulls still depend on the gel coat to keep the water out. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
30. JIMinFL
I think you could strip all the gelcoat entirely off a boat and it would still float. If the fibers were adequately wetted out with resin, the hull wouldn't even absorb water (or "wick" it around). That seems to be where we disagree. Now you are qualifing with "adequately wetted out with resin". Sure some better hulls will be more resistant to water penetration. The cheaper hulls still depend on the gel coat to keep the water out ****** :-) When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate, etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard hull rather than a defective one. No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the bilge. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: JIMinFL wrote: I would not let any crack or gouge in gelcoat go unrepaired. Particularly under the water line. I think we would agree on that. Particularly since it's almost impossible to crack or gouge *only* the gel coat. :-) Not true. Cracking is one thing. Gel coat can (and will) crack easily. Gouging is another issue, given than most gel coat applications is thinner than a dime. Making it thicker is no good as it will tend to crack more. Eisboch |
Blisters 'n microwaves
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message groups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Thanks Mom. BTW: He posed the statement about the deductions being only for the rich. Have a nice day John. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! You should ask yourself why you facilitate both of these newsgroup troublemakers. How absolutely funny. Look in the mirror lately Krause? |
Blisters 'n microwaves
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message groups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight. Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing. Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I shall not repeat with every post you made to him. My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is not appreciated. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
|
Blisters 'n microwaves
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:59:07 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight. Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing. I don't comment on Harry's troll and arguing because that's what Harry *wants*. Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I shall not repeat with every post you made to him. Yes, that's true. I apologized for it, and it has not been repeated. My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is not appreciated. Understood. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JimH,
You can see that Harry will continue to troll all of us anytime he wants to get a rise and start a good argument. We all need to just ignore his trolls. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight. Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing. Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I shall not repeat with every post you made to him. My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is not appreciated. There he goes...again, the Rev. Netmommy Jim, shoveling it fast and furious. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
Sometimes it is best to take the advice of experts.Subject: 3.3 The
destructive Troll In about the year 1999 a new breed of Troll appeared who have the declared intention of destroying a specific Target newsgroup. This is done by a variety of posts, (see Section 4) intended to drive normal posters away from the specific newsgroup. When the percentage of Troll posts, including followups exceeds about 75% of the total posts, most readers seem to just give up and unsubscribe. Subject: 5.1 Ignore them and they will go away. This is the traditional usenet method of dealing with Trolls, and is regularly suggested.It is similar to the method use to train dogs, and very young children, ignore bad behaviour and reward good behaviour. Thus it is only likely to work if the, The Infant or Attention Seeker theory, is true "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:59:07 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I may have talked about this idea before......... Here is an idea. Why not address questions presented to you in other threads you started before starting yet another new thread? Jim, are you just looking for a fight? My gosh, you posed the question, "For the rich????????" Was that really supposed to be more than rhetorical? You're trying with Harry, now you're trying with dhohara. Why not knock it off? Jeeeesh! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes BTW: Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. I did indeed get into with Harry the other day but I did so only to set his lies straight. Funny that you never commented on his troll and continued arguing. I don't comment on Harry's troll and arguing because that's what Harry *wants*. Regardless, I recall you having a bad *month* with calling Harry a word I shall not repeat with every post you made to him. Yes, that's true. I apologized for it, and it has not been repeated. My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is not appreciated. Understood. No offense, fellas, but, really, it's a bit too much of "do as I say," not "do as I do." Hardly a day goes by here without both of you directly or indirectly insulting others. Perhaps you need to stand and and say the following here every day: 1. I am powerless over trolling-my life has become unmanageable. 2. I believe a power greater than myself has made me this way, and I am not responsible for my behavior. Harry is responsible. 3. I have made a decision to turn my will and my life over to the care of RepubliGod as I understood him. 4. I have made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself, and discovered that I couldn't count... And so on. Stay tuned for the next installment of the The Reverands. "Hi! My name is (Jim, John, whatever), and I am a newsgroup troller. I have gone (one, two, 10, 30) days without insulting anyone." |
Blisters 'n microwaves
wrote in message oups.com... :-) When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate, etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard hull rather than a defective one. No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the bilge. I can't argue this point with you. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:58:13 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Stay tuned for the next installment of the The Reverands. =========================== Better yet, why not put them in the KF and stop their fun? |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JimH wrote:
snip... My point is that we all have our bad days John and you being my netmommy is not appreciated. Oh my my! 'Do as I say, not as I do'! |
Blisters 'n microwaves
Harry Krause wrote:
Read my post regarding an adaptation of a 12-step program for "reformed" whine-aholics. I got a kick of how the Rev kept butting in when you & John were awkwardly starting negotiations on a boat deal. He must think John just fell off a turnip truck. After all John is probably one of the few here who has seen Yo Ho up close. |
Blisters 'n microwaves
JIMinFL wrote: wrote in message oups.com... :-) When one states that water is going to leak through the frp laminate and into the boat unless it is somehow stopped by the gelcoat- and if one means "if the hull is defective.......", then it would be best to so state. When talking about general functions of gelcoat, laminate, etc it would be customary to assume one is talking about a standard hull rather than a defective one. No builder depends on gelcoat to keep water from leaking into the bilge. I can't argue this point with you. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I'm talking about your position that damaged gel coat will cause a fiberglass hull to leak, (based upon the premise that the function of gelcoat is to "waterproof" the fiberglass). |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com