<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Here are my thoughts on the buoys under discussion. Currently we
have, relatively light buoys (easily pushed around) which are quite
soft. The proposed buoys weigh a great deal more (220#s
approximately) and are relatively stiff/hard and have less buoyancy.<br>
<br>
The buoys in front of the club have a maximum length of chain of
75". This means that under many conditions the buoy will be
holding 400 # of chain (5.33 #s/ft), 2 pennants at (a guess) 25 #s a
piece and shackles/swivel etc of approx 10 - 15 + #s. Therefore the
buoy will be supporting 450 or 460 #s. The total displacement of
the buoy is approximately 14 cubic ft (Approx 830 #s). The buoy
weight should be about 220#s. The published net displacement is 610
#s. This leaves a remaining displacement/buoyancy of about 260 #s.
If we consider the current in the river to add less than 200#s of
drag, maximum, the buoy should remain on the surface most of the
time. If we add the wind loading, which can be much more than that,
on to the force applied to the buoy, we must realize that the
additional forces will cause the buoy to be submerged at times
during windy days. This is not necessarily bad and actually will
dampen the motion of a moored boat but the buoy may be submerged
beneath the water and may not be seen by boaters entering the
mooring field. The current buoys have 750#s of buoyancy (135"
diameter) so we have not seen the same effect as they remain on the
surface. I am not sure this is a serious fault and it really
remains to be seen how the proposed buoys act under real
conditions. I do agree that it might be very valuable to place one
these buoys on a mooring and see what happens. I do not think,
however that we should make a commitment to change all of the
existing buoys right now as there are a number of unanswered
questions. I do agree with Bud in that I think the bow of a moored
boat will ride over these buoys on tide changes. This may cause
some scraping of the hull since the buoy material is quite rigid or,
in the worst case cause damage from the hardware on the mooring
pendants scraping the hull. This rigidity can also cause some loud
bumping on the hull which can be an irritating nuisance at night
since they can be clearly heard inside the boat. These issues have
been what has helped make the acceptance of this type of buoy very
slow especially in waters where the dynamics (waves, wind, and high
currents) are significant. We should also realize that changing all
of our moorings to this system would be an $18000-20,000 expense. I
do, however, think we should experiment with one to see how they act
in our somewhat unique environment. I can see both the pros and the
cons of changing our mooring buoys. <br>
<br>
Dick<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/2016 6:58 PM, John Myles wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:451F5B87-FD7B-445B-9240-118BB2F2AAA4@myles.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><br>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">My
two cents is that we have to go 5/8" minimum 3/4" will last
longer and be more cost effective on the chain. As for the
pendent I have done both in the river and found one to be
safer as two work against each other. I have had the
shackle back off with two. If you are concerned about chafe
you could go with a bridal but hard to do with block line
preferred over braided. </span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">As
for the winter test I don't see the need as lone as the math
works on the chain weight, you really need a boat riding on
it to truly test it. <br>
<br>
Bud</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>
On Jan 15, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Roy Briscoe <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:roysail@hotmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:roysail@hotmail.com">roysail@hotmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">I have some more information about the top down
approach of the mooring proposed:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last year we switched from the underneath attachment to
the top attachment to resolve the issue of our pendents
always wrapping themselves around the bottom of the
mooring and then being unable to unwrap them easily and
sometimes having to square them away from the dinghy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having them come out of the top fixed the wrapping
issue. But dual pendants still twist around themselves. I
think the issue is the weight of the pendents and the
hardware prevents the swivel from swiveling, see attached
picture. This might be less of an issue with the mooring
float proposed, maybe, because all the hardware would be
on top and not hanging over the top. Also the current is
much stronger in front of the club so that might pull up
on the hardware so it can swivel and get it off the
mooring ball. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So we probably will want to think about using the two
pendent approach, they are going to twist and it is going
to cost twice an much to maintain. <span style="font-size:
12pt;">I'm not sure I'd go with double pendents at the
IOS and Pepperrell Cove, though I can see using them in
front of the Club.</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I like the proposed float because there is room to
store the pendents on top, but the users will need to
remember to place them there when they drop them because
they don't automatically spring back and coil themselves
up, unless that is an option. Bottom line, I think they
will still end up in the water.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When we upgraded last year we were told that the
mooring hardware rules were changing for 2016 and
everything was going to scale up in size. We opted to meet
the 2016 rules even though we didn't have too, so the
chain and pendent size went up one level, which of course
meant it was going to cost a little more. So we may have
to use heavier chain and larger pendents this year if we
do any work on the moorings.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we put one of these out front for the winter, would
we put pendents on it or just the float?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Roy<br>
<br>
<div>> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dan@dangingras.net">dan@dangingras.net</a><br>
> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:JohnC@myles.com">JohnC@Myles.com</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:board@portsmouthyc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:board@portsmouthyc.org">board@portsmouthyc.org</a></a><br>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:19:20 -0500<br>
> Subject: Re: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information<br>
> <br>
> The reasons to move to these floats from the large
balls are<br>
> <br>
> 1- Allow for the use of double pennants (which
would have prevented the<br>
> Osprey accident last year)<br>
> 2- Move the swivel to the top of the chain and out
of the water,<br>
> preventing potential of the pennant against the
swivel if it jams (which may<br>
> have been the cause of the osprey accident)<br>
> 3- Move the pennants out of the water to eliminate
growth and prevent<br>
> them from being run over (which happened a couple
of times last year)<br>
> <br>
> Dan<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: John Myles [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:JohnC@Myles.com">mailto:JohnC@Myles.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:47 AM<br>
> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dan@dangingras.net">dan@dangingras.net</a>;
'Board of Directors' <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:board@portsmouthyc.org">board@portsmouthyc.org</a>><br>
> Subject: RE: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information<br>
> <br>
> At $550.00 it's about the same as the big mooring
balls to replace.<br>
> Bud<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Board [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:board-bounces@portsmouthyc.org">mailto:board-bounces@portsmouthyc.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Dan Gingras<br>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:40 AM<br>
> To: 'Board of Directors' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:board@portsmouthyc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:board@portsmouthyc.org">board@portsmouthyc.org</a></a>><br>
> Subject: [Board] FW: Mooring Float Information<br>
> <br>
> Attached is what Nancy and I were discussing.<br>
> <br>
> Dan<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Paul Roy [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:proy@proconinc.com">mailto:proy@proconinc.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:53 AM<br>
> To: 'Dan Gingras (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dan@dangingras.net">dan@dangingras.net</a>)'
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dan@dangingras.net">dan@dangingras.net</a>><br>
> Subject: FW: Mooring Float Information<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Paul W. Roy<br>
> Director of Business Development | Client Services<br>
> 603.623.8811 ext 243<br>
> 603.396.2352 cell<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:proy@proconinc.com">proy@proconinc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:proy@proconinc.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:proy@proconinc.com">mailto:proy@proconinc.com</a></a>><br>
> <br>
> [Description: PROCON Logo email signatuure 2]<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Scott Dawes [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sdawes@gilmancorp.com">mailto:sdawes@gilmancorp.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:29 PM<br>
> To: Paul Roy<br>
> Cc: Liz Gilman<br>
> Subject: Mooring Float Information<br>
> <br>
> Mr. Roy,<br>
> <br>
> Thank you for your interest in our mooring floats.
As requested, I've<br>
> attached some information to this e-mail in PDF
format for your review.<br>
> <br>
> All of our mooring floats come with the non-marring
fender deck ring and<br>
> have a twelve-year warranty for net buoyancy and
color.<br>
> <br>
> If you have any questions or if I can be of any
further assistance, please<br>
> do not hesitate to contact me.<br>
> <br>
> Respectfully,<br>
> <br>
> Scott Dawes<br>
> VP of Aids to Navigation<br>
> (860) 887-7080, Ext 14<br>
> (860) 861-6623 (cell)<br>
> (860) 886-5402 (fax)<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gilmancorp.com">www.gilmancorp.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gilmancorp.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gilmancorp.com">http://www.gilmancorp.com</a></a>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><Kittery new mooring 1.jpg></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>