[PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls

Wed Mar 18 16:01:31 EDT 2015

Hank
I have used ss bolts with 2 o rings on the bolts as inserts into my 10
through hull sleeves ,that way I can modify them later for any purpose.
Glen

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Sean T Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles
<personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:

> Concur with this. Larger cross sectional diameters offer improved sealing
> to rougher surfaces, scratches, etc.  The tradeoff is just the depth needed
> for the gland and consequent size of parts, machining cost, etc.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On March 17, 2015 8:48:06 PM MDT, Hugh Fulton via Personal_Submersibles <
> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>
>> Brian, Best to use the largest O'ring cross section you feel comfortable
>> with.  You have a bigger tolerance then to wear and machining tolerances
>> etc.
>> Sorry I don't know what the pressures or diameters are that you are dealing
>> with.
>> One of the things that we do is use FS-3452 Fluorosilicon grease which has a
>> great life but compatibility may be an issue to check.  The other thing is
>> to use the oxygen grease which is as slippery as.  Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Personal_Submersibles [mailto:personal_submersibles-bounces at psubs.org]
>> On Behalf Of Brian Cox via Personal_Submersibles
>> Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2015 2:52 p.m.
>> To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>>
>> Right Hugh,  sorry about that, that was the reach on a groover I was looking
>> at.  Hugh do you have any thoughts on whether a smaller size O ring would!
>>   do
>> ?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> --- personal_submersibles at psubs.org wrote:
>>
>> From: Hugh Fulton via Personal_Submersibles
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> To: "'Personal Submersibles General Discussion'"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:26:55 +1300
>>
>> Hank /Brian
>> 1/8 O'ring is 0.121 depth not .143 for an imperial ring.
>> Make sure you check properly.
>> Chs Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Personal_Submersibles [mailto:personal_submersibles-bounces at psubs.org]
>> On Behalf Of Brian Cox via Personal_Submersibles
>> Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2015 1:19 p.m.
>> To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>>
>> Hank,
>>        Actually the 1/8" O ring calls for a .143 gland depth , and that
>> would be on each side !  The groove cutters I've looked at did not !
>>  go up
>> that high considering the shank has to go in the 1/2" hole.  I'm sure it
>> could be done, and your right about the surface area , but when you consider
>> the tolerance of the shaft to the bore we're only talking about .005
>> difference or so.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> --- personal_submersibles at psubs.org wrote:
>>
>> From: hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:03:35 -0700
>>
>>
>> Brian,
>> Sorry, my memory failed me, I just measured a spare o ring for the reach rod
>> and it is .100 not .125 so it is a bit smaller.
>> Hank
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> On Tue, 3/17/15, Brian Cox via Personal_Submersibles
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>>  To: "Personal Submersibles General Discus!
>>  sion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>  Received: Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 6:34 PM
>>
>>  Hank,
>>         That is an incredibly deep
>>  groove, and I don't see the reason for it.  I was  considering going with
>> that size but getting a grooving tool  to go .125 thousandths is a long way
>> to go, especially in a  1/2" hole !
>>
>>  Brian
>>
>>  --- personal_submersibles at psubs.org
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  From: hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>  To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>  Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
>>  Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:26:57 -0700
>>
>>  Brian,
>>  Gamma has 1/8 orings, I would go with 1/8 might be more  forgiveness.
>>  Hank
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>  On Tue, 3/17/15, Brian Cox via Personal_Submersibles
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>   Subject: [PSUBS-MAI!
>>  LIST]
>> thru hulls
>>   To: "PSubs" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>   Received: Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 3:31 PM
>>
>>   Hi
>>   All,
>>   Starting in on thru hull production.  I will need
>>   probably close to a dozen of them.  I'm making them
>>   all to accept a 1/2" stainless shaft, and I will be
>>   using 1/16"  O rings.  I don't see any
>>   need to use thicker diameter O
>>   rings ,  since the deeper O ring grooves
>>   can be a bit more problematic.   By the time my
>>   welder finishes all the remaining critical welds I should
>>   have my thru hulls done.   Also working on my
>>   forward hard ballast tank, approx. 18" in dia X 5'
>>   long
>>   .  Cheers, Brian
>>
>>
>>   -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>   Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>>   Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>>   http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>  Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>>  Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>>  http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>  Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>>  Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>>  http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
>> database 11336 (20150317) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
>> database 11336 (20150317) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
>> database 11336 (20150317) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
>> database 11336 (20150317) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20150318/a30e1529/attachment-0001.html>