All donations are securely managed through PayPal. Amounts donated are not published online.
Many thanks for your kind support.
Model Boats Website Team
December 2017: 4 people November 2017: 13 people October 2017: 9 people September 2017: 15 people August 2017: 10 people July 2017: 16 people June 2017: 8 people May 2017: 8 people April 2017: 17 people
The main advantage of Eze-kote may be its main disadvantage: it's water-based. As stated on the Great Hobbies website, "This product may be damaged by freezing. Shipping during periods of weather below zero is not recommended." So in Canada, shipping between December and May is not recommended. It does not state "Protect from freezing" on the bottle, but it would be helpful if someone who has tried it can confirm it's OK after freezing. There are 4 Great Hobbies stores in Canada if you are lucky enough to be able to visit and pick up the product. Roy
Hi Dave, I guess I have not run my models long enough yet since I have had no wear in either shafts, bearings or seals. I did have one seal in a Raboesch assembly, in a twin shaft model, which didn't leak but seemed to be deteriorating. Raboesch supplied a replacement free of charge. I had used Goop adhesive to attach the seal/bearing cap so it was a 5 minute job to soften the adhesive with a heat gun and fit the replacement. Roy
Every time I see a post about lubricating a prop shaft I wonder why more people don't used sealed prop shafts, such as those made by Raboesch and others. It's clearly not an option if your model has the prop shaft already in place but for new construction it's a case of 'fit and forget'. I have not used anything else, ever. Is the extra cost the only disincentive to their universal adoption? Roy
It's one of the facets of scratchbuilding that is little talked about. It seems inevitable that undesirable features (I don't want to say errors) will occur and then there's some serious head-scratching about whether to ignore, cover up, fix (and how to) or start again. This is a great encouragement to others facing similar dilemmas to figure out a fix.
A really intriguing choice of model, and a great example of where inspiration can be found for a scratch-built model. I will look forward to seeing a picture of the finished vessel. I notice that the book does not contain any information on the hull lines; what did you use as the source for the shape of your frames? Roy
In view of Doug's experience, we contacted Godaddy. They advised us that we need SSL certification for our site. I'm a complete novice when it comes to website design and security but I learnt two things. One is that SSL is indicated by the green padlock and the 's' in https in the address bar. The second is that it's considered vital if sensitive information is being transmitted, such as credit card data, usernames and passwords, etc. And of course, SSL costs money. A scan of the list of clubs on this website showed that only one has SSL and they are using Google Sites, Google being actively pushing for SSL on everything. We are a group of model boaters whose website is simply making available for viewing some of our activities, we are not collecting anything from visitors. In conclusion, we will not be making any changes, and so McAfee users will continue to receive the message Doug reported. Roy
Garth, no doubt that Graupner make excellent products but CAD$35 + shipping is a stretch. Especially when you can make up a double universal for CAD$10 with two of these. I've been using these for several years now. Roy
If I start a model using a fibreglass hull the first thing I do is bolt it down to a building board, just as RHBaker has done. Access to the bottom is not needed until painting, so the model can be worked on 'keel down'. I have two end boards that can be screwed on to the building board, and these allow me to lay the hull on its side, or upside down, and be stable, if I need to work on it that way. When the hull is ready for painting the holes in the hull are filled and sanded.
Our club's 2nd annual "Light up the night" evening sail with lights on. The weather co-operated so it was dry and balmy after the sun went down. Lots of spectators on hand to enjoy the spectacle. Some boats were lit up like Christmas trees but others had the bare minimum navigation lights; at times navigating was a challenge.
I share your frustration with paper plans that stretch with high humidity, but never shrink back when the humidity drops, and stretch more when the humidity rises again. (One reason why drawing offices used to make tracings on mylar. ) I use paper plans as a guide or for measuring small dimensions. For larger dimensions I work from a digital file, using software such as GIMP (which is free) to take measurements - making sure that the digital image is to size !
Dave, I edit this site and have done since we set it up in February so I can hardly refrain from visiting it. It was set up using the Godaddy facility and, as such, is their responsibility to ensure security. Sounds like we might have made the wrong choice regarding host. Roy
Gentlemen, many thanks for all the feedback. To respond to Dave's questions first: the charger I have been using is an MRC Super Brain 989, and the recorder is an Eagletree Micropower E-logger V2; both are off-the-shelf items and not calibrated. I know there can be some discrepancy between the two, but surely not enough to explain the numbers? I cannot check the temperature of the battery. That will be affected by another variable - charge and discharge current, will it not? As Dave and Doug have pointed out, I made a very, very rough, simple, conservative calculation of mAh looking at the chart. I did not try to be mathematically precise. It was a number for me to explain my question of whether the apparent charge and discharge efficiencies made sense and could they be explained. I have learnt a lot from this exchange and, since I have already acquired 3 battery chargers over the years, I am reluctant to invest in another one only to measure battery impedance. Question is now, does future potential use of such a charger make better financial sense than simply throwing away the questionable batteries and replacing them. Decisions, decisions. One final question, what charge and discharge efficiencies would you expect from a new battery past its "running-in" duration? I am aware that mAh capacities are not based on any recognised standard, but I have been led to believe that the stated capacities of Panasonic and Venom batteries are more reliable than most. Thanks again, Roy
Doug, Regarding your comment, "Avoid using double jointed couplings, they waste power and create wear and noise". Can you please explain this in more detail? I have heard this comment before, but my experience has been quite the opposite. No noise, no wear (yet) and no noticeable loss of power, presumably evidenced by the couplings getting hot. Roy
Here's a conundrum that I'd like your thoughts on. I recorded some data on one of my boats now running on a couple of the battery packs that were cycled as discussed earlier. They are 6V 5000mAh NiMH packs which, after their final charge, showed they received 5500mAh according to my charger. For the subsequent run I fitted a recorder which showed the current consumption, as on the attached chart; typically 2.55A, with a maximum of 2.9A. A rough consumption calculation based on the chart, of 2.55A for 70 minutes, is a little less than 3000mAh. When I recharged them after the run, the charger showed they'd taken 3850mAh. Why the difference between the 3000mAh consumption, and the replacement charge of 3850mAh? The charge and discharge efficiencies are obviously less than 100%, but this data suggests that the two combined are only 78%. So, for example, if the two efficiences are equal (89%), if the charger states a charged value of 5000mAh, the battery has only accepted 4450mAh (=5000*89/100). When delivering the power, it can only put out 3960mAh.(=4450*89/100). Or in other words, only 78% of a battery's stated capacity is usable. Or is there a different explanation? Roy
My preferred logo paper is the white waterproof adhesive-backed vinyl made by Papilio for inkjet printers. http://www.papilio.com/inkjet%20waterproof%20adhesive%20film... You may find a supplier in the UK - which is where I presume you are. A UV-resistant spray is all that is recommended. Its adhesive is far superior to that on waterslide transfer paper. Roy
Regarding Doug's suggestion of putting a diode in the red wire from two ESC's, the forward voltage drop in the diode will reduce the voltage at the receiver by 0.6 volt less than the BEC puts out. Is this going to affect the operation of the receiver and everything connected to it? Does the BEC voltage vary depending on the load on the ESC, or is it stable enough? Roy
For someone on a budget, the described methods of recovering a battery may be worth a try. On the other hand, if I have spent a year or two building a scale model, it's not worth risking it for the cost of a battery. Roy
Gentlemen, after charging the packs at 100mA for 24 hours, I stripped off the heat shrink from one pack for testing. Unloaded, 4 cells in the pack showed 1.40 volts on my multimeter, with one cell showing 1.37V - near as dammit to 7V for the pack. With a load applied, the current started at 0.95A, dropping to 0.9A when the voltage fell to 1.15. The one cell was consistently the lowest, but never more than ~30mV. From this test I calculated that the capacity used was 2250mAh. Not the rated capacity of 2550mAh, but almost there. During these tests I discovered that the recording meter that I had been relying on for the previous testing was giving inconsistent readings, a fact I only discovered when I started using my multimeter. This possibly resulted in my considering the battery discharged in previous tests, when it was not. Roy
Dave, I've tested one battery pack as you suggest. With a load of 0.95A the voltage drops immediately from 6.75V to 6.2V, and in just under 4 minutes drops to 6V. I presume this meets your diagnosis that (at least) one cell has failed. You are correct in presuming that my charger is indicating the 1200mAh capacity. I have been charging at 0.8A, which is the lowest current setting on that charger. I now have both packs charging on 100mA, which is the closest I can get to the recommendations from Doug and sidley70, but this charger does not indicate mAh. Roy
I have a related but different question. I have 2 battery packs each comprising 5 new AA NiMH batteries of 2550mAh capacity of a well-regarded and long-established manufacturer. They are not charging up to their rated capacity. I have put them through 6 or 7 charge/discharge cycles and the maximum charge they will take is 1200mAh. The packs will charge to full voltage, around 6.8V, and I discharge them down to 6V. More than one cell must be defective for it to be only half capacity, and how likely is that. Are there any other techniques that might restore the capacity, or are they forever stuck at 1200mAh? Roy