[PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls

Wed Mar 18 16:44:18 EDT 2015

Brian,
Testing a small o ring just tells you it is good on test day.  The larger o ring will help when the rod is compromised etc. 
I think I went .119 or so, the chart will tell you the minimum and I went the min because the rod is very low rpm and well lubricated.
Hank
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 3/18/15, Brian Cox via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hulls
 To: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
 Received: Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 4:37 PM

 Hmm..   Maybe
 I'll test one. brian

 --- personal_submersibles at psubs.org wrote:

 From: Sean T Stevenson 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 13:20:46 -0600

 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

 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

 _______________________________________________
 Personal_Submersibles mailing list
 Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
 http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles