November 2003 - montgomery_boats - mailman.xmission.com

Re: M_Boats: CDI
by fml162＠aol.com 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

Thanks for the website on the furler. It is useful. Does anyone have any idea about how tough these little guys are; i.e, will the system take the abuse from being hauled up and down when stepping the mast repeatedly? Peace. Skip

2 1

M17 History
by Honshells 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

Mike, This history, http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m17_history.cfm , by Jerry Montgomery, answers some of your questions about the M17's production history. --Craig

1 0

Re: M_Boats: M 17 Sail Inventory, Roller Furling
by fml162＠aol.com 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

Will follow up with the CDI info. Stay tuned. Thanks. Skip

2 1

Re: M_Boats: M 17 Sail Inventory, Roller Furling
by fml162＠aol.com 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

I would be interested to also know about the quotes on the headsail roller furling headsail for the M 17. IF Bob can cut several at the same time, there might be a cost savings (?). Cheers. Skip Langley

1 0

Re: M_Boats: wick stove
by Woodsybill＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

I concur with Mr. Grometer on the efficiency, simplicity and safety of the non- pressurized alcohol stove. The features of my Optimus MK1 are similar to the single burner Origo but the Optimus is slightly smaller, but not by much. I was surprised to learn that the Origo canister holds a quart of alcohol because the Optimus only holds 8 ounces. Some shortcomings of the Optimus stove are 1, A cap has to be kept on the orifice when not in use to minimize evaporation of the alcohol; 2, Guess work is involved when saturating the absorptive material in the canister when it is not completely purged (partially empty) of alcohol so as not to overfill to point of dripping and 3, it does not burn as hot and consequently takes longer ( but not much) to boil water than petroleum pressure stoves. So there is a trade off. With me, in the confines of a small area, especially in a boat, safety, simplicity, and relative efficiency are imperatives. Bill K M-17 (055)

1 0

Re: M_Boats: M 17 Sail Inventory, Roller Furling
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

In a message dated 11/9/03 11:17:57 AM, rc2222(a)pacbell.net writes: >Scott: > >Do you have cost estimates from Bob Hogin and the Snap Furl System? > > >Rich Cottrell Rich, I haven't talked to Bob about this for a while. When I last did, it was for a larger boat. I'll query him this week. I need to find out from him whether the tri-radial cut sail will roll flat to the size of my storm jib (made by him). I'll let you know what I find out. As for the Snapfurl CF-500, West wants $634.99 (2003 Master Catalog) while Defender lists it for only $383.00 ( http://www.defender.com/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.cgi?keywords=Sta-Lok&fr…) I know the idea of furling seems silly on a tiny fractional-rigged boat like the M15. I don't find reefing the working jib (with reef points) too difficult, but I don't so much like going forward while single handing in rough seas to change to the storm jib. I like the Snap-Furl design, as there are no modifications to the stay, and you can switch back to hank-on at will. Scott, M15 #478 'bebe' Scott

1 0

Re: M_Boats: M 17 Sail Inventory, Roller Furling
by fml162＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

Thanks for the response. On my earlier M 17 a simple downhaul which was led back to the cockpit with a series of small blocks snapped onto the metal rail was quite satisfactory to hold the sail in place until someone went forward to bag the jib at a more convenient time. Now it would be nice to just roll the sucker up when it comes time to motor into the upper harbor. I do have some misgivings, however, about the vulnerability of the rigging and roller on a rig that will be up and down on the trailer at least several times a season. Then of course, what size sail do I go with to guess at the average conditions. Decisions, decisions, decisions. That is what it makes it fun, though. Thanks. Skip Langley

1 0

Re: M_Boats: wick stove
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

In a message dated 11/3/03 4:29:01 PM, southisland2(a)earthlink.net writes: >Is the Origo stove listed on the Monty owners web page a alcohol wick >or pressure type, what is the boil rate for one quart, about 5 minutes or >so or is it less The Origo is pure absorption. It is not a wick per se, but a canister filled with a wool-like material that absorbs about 1qt of alcohol. It is virtually impossible to spill the alcohol--even when the canister is inverted. I have used these stoves now for about ten years, and I typically get about 6-7 hours/quart of fuel, and typical water boil times are 6-8 minutes/quart at sea level. Several on this list with tortured memories of the old, fussy, pressurized stoves have dismissed this stove, but I would argue that it is the very best one for our small boats. It is beautiful in its simplicity (one moving part--a door to modulate flame), virtually silent, efficient, and hot enough (frankly, I don't notice much difference between the heating times of the Origo and my v arious white gas, butane, and propane camping stoves--excepting that I can simmer better on the Origo!) Someone mentioned spilled fuel being dangerous. I refuel mine outside the cabin, and once it is filled, spillage is almost impossible. Flare-ups are all but impossible. No maintenance required. Scott Grometer, M15, #478 'bebe'

1 0

Re: M_Boats: New old M-17
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

In a message dated 11/1/03 10:22:03 AM, chonshell(a)ia4u.net writes: >Wish I'd known this before I bought my 4-horse . . . Personally, where >outboards are concerned, I think >smaller is better . . . I would prefer to mount the smallest motor that >would work . . . Craig, I guess I will have to be the voice of descent here. I don't think 2HP is adequate for what you might encounter in your sailing area--the Great Lakes. It would seem that you have exactly the appropriate combination of power and features for your application. Scott, M15 #478 'bebe'

2 1

Gel's and AGM's are NOT the same
by Wilsometer＠aol.com 09 Nov '03

09 Nov '03

In a message dated 11/7/03 9:36:56 PM, southisland2(a)earthlink.net writes: >re there any electrical engineers out there listening: I am not an Electrical Engineer, but I will speak to what I know: >I was told today,at an large alternate energy store that if you use normal >gel cell, also called AGM, or standard deep cycle liquid acid batteries >between 85 amps and 150 amps (size) you do not need a charge control on >the solar panels if the solar panels are the low voltage type at 16.8 volts >closed circuit or less. First of all, several have confused Gel cell type batteries with AGM batteries. They are not the same, and should not be lumped together for purposes of charging. While both are of the sealed, recombinant variety, there is a very important difference. Gel Batteries employ a viscous thixotropic gel between the positive and negative plates. AGM's on the other hand, employ an absorbent glass mat between the positive and negative plates. This mat material is saturated with a small amount of liquid (not gel) electrolyte. Why does this matter? Well, the Gel Cells are extremely sensitive to overcharging VOLTAGES. As a general rule, any sustained charging above 14.1 volts can cause the forming of permanent air bubbles or voids in the gel electrolyte. The plate areas in contact with these bubbles/voids become 'dead-zones', which is to say that they become permanently useless portions of the battery. It does not take long to lose significant quantities of battery capacity as a result of overvoltage charging. An AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat) battery, on the other hand is much more tolerant of overcharging because any bubbles formed in the liquid electrolyte will be replaced by flowing liquid electrolyte. That is not to say that you cannot overcharge an AGM--you can--but they are typically tolerant of much higher voltages, and for much longer periods. It used to be that Gel's had an appreciable capacity difference over the early generation AGM's. The gap is closing, and many are now touting the AGM as the ultimate battery. The AGM has lower internal resistance, enjoys a very low self-discharge rate, and tolerates deep discharges. I have switched to AGM's exclusively in my cars/trucks, boats, and in PV systems. By the way, someone called the Optima spiral-type batteries a Gel Cell, but it is technically an AGM. As for unregulated charging, the rule I constantly hear tossed around is the 2% rule--that is, an unregulated panel should not produce more than 2% of the battery AH capacity. For purposes of my M15 with its group U-1 AGM batteries (32AH each) should not be charged at more than .04A. My flexible Unisolar USF-11 panel (fits nicely on the sliding companionway hatch) is rated at 10.3W/0.85A @12V, and as such should probably be regulated. On the other hand, if panel voltage stays at or below 14.3 volts (for an AGM, not GEL), I am told I should be OK without regulation. I will defer to the engineers on this latter point. Scott, M15 #478 'bebe'

1 0