<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Sorry, forgot to mention that all of our deep water buoys Have 3/4"
chain. 5/8" in some of the shallow locations. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/2016 8:01 PM, Dick Blidberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5699966C.4070201@ausi.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"> <img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</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>