Date   

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

Craig, I will check it out, they all sound good according to their propaganda . But which is the best,how do you know. Yachting Monthly did a prop test, but then that was brought into question. 
Thanks,
Pat SM#123


-----Original Message-----
From: sangaris@... [amelyachtowners]
To: amelyachtowners
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 11:11 am
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Hi Pat,
Just to add a couple of points to your cogimatations, you can adjust the Max Prop pitch to what you prefer, fine tuning as necessary as you go. You may also want to check out the AutoStream by Australian company Seahawk, distributed in the US by Martec.  It's a beautiful stainless steel feathering prop similar to the MaxProp and the pitch can be adjusted without removing the prop, as I believe the MaxProp requires (perhaps just some models). Much less expensive than the MaxProp, too.
Cheers,
Craig SN68 Sangaris


---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, c an owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...>
To: amelyachtowners <amelyachtowners@...>
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Craig Briggs
 

Hi Pat,
Just to add a couple of points to your cogimatations, you can adjust the Max Prop pitch to what you prefer, fine tuning as necessary as you go. You may also want to check out the AutoStream by Australian company Seahawk, distributed in the US by Martec.  It's a beautiful stainless steel feathering prop similar to the MaxProp and the pitch can be adjusted without removing the prop, as I believe the MaxProp requires (perhaps just some models). Much less expensive than the MaxProp, too.
Cheers,
Craig SN68 Sangaris


---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, can owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...>
To: amelyachtowners <amelyachtowners@...>
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Jose Venegas
 

Craig, 
You interpreted my point as intended.  I did not read your last post before I answered it with a long explanation, but hopefully, it helps in the discussion.  Particularly in reducing the fears of oil loss and C-Drive damage due to it.
I fear more the long-term damage of potential corrosion caused by salt water or premature gear wear caused by silt in river of stuaries water.  

Jose Venegas


Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Miles
 

WOB problems,

 

I am wondering what grease is being used by those who are having problems with leaking WOBs.    I have never had a problem.  For 7 years the Amel people in Hyeres took care of my boat and changed the WOB several times at about 650 hours.  They had buckets of silicone grease, used lots of it, and said to use nothing else.   Not only did I not have any problems, but neither did any of the other Amel owners that I knew.   

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216. Le Marin Martinique


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, can owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners]
To: amelyachtowners
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123


Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Jose Venegas
 

Craig and Eric,

What  I call the lip is spring side of the seal. In other words, in my experimental configuration, the orientation of inner (next to the C-Drive) and middle seals was with the spring facing the propeller side (preventing water in) and the outer seal facing the C-Drive (preventing the oil from leaving).  

I think I can clarify a little more my rationale in the sentences below

Before proceeding it is important to note that standard seals work to prevent motion of oil from the spring side, lip side, but not from the opposite side.  As pressure builds on the spring side it creates a force that tends to close the gap between seal and shaft.  In contrast, when the pressure builds on the opposite side of the seal, it tends to expand the lip outwards opening a gap and allowing motion across the seal.   In standard applications, the seal lip faces the high-pressure oil side. 

As Danny pointed out, the density of oil is only 90-93 %  that of water oil would tend to move up relative to water if both liquids present in the same container.  However,  what drives the direction of motion of fluid across the seals is the net pressure difference across them.  That difference is proportional to the difference of the products of the height of the column times the density of the fluid.  So, because the oil reservoir is above the water level by more than 10% of the distance between the water level and oil level in the tank, under normal conditions the net pressure across the seals would tend to move oil out of the C-Drive in the absence of any seals.  Note, however, that if there were no seals preventing such motion, oil would flow out until its height is just about 10% higher than that of the water and, at that point, the flow would stop (pressure difference becomes zero!.  So even if the seal (or seals) preventing the oil from leaving were to fail catastrophically, the oil in the C-Drive would not empty completely.

So why do we get water into the C-Drive when using the "Amel way" of orienting the seals?  Well, the above calculation is valid only on static conditions. During dynamic conditions, when the outer seal fails, the interface between oil and water is put in motion driven by the shaft, which tends to mix the two fluids forming the cream chocolate color emulsion.  If the central and inner seals (spring side) are facing the C-Drive as recommended by AMEL,  this emulsion can move easily across them into the C-Drive and is mixed with the rest of the oil by the recirculation action of the C-Drive inner pump.  Over time the water entering the C-Drive makes the oil level on the reservoir increase. 

Then, why did the seals and bushing lasted longer and water did not get into the C-Drive in my experimental configuration?  First, the friction between the bushing and the seal surface, over time tends to wear both surfaces. When newly installed proper greasing mitigates this friction and reduces wear but as the grease deteriorates over time, friction increases and the seal wears out. A harder bushing would last longer but the seal wear is the same.  In either case, the presence of a thin layer of fluid (oil or water) between seal and bushing acts to lubricate the surface and reduce friction.  In my experimental configuration, the  seals next to the C-Drive Oil allow oil motion towards the outer seal when the latter begin to lose sealing.  This makes them lubricated by the oil moving out, thus prolonging their life.  If at this point, the C-Drive oil is made more viscous, the additional viscosity of the oil elevates the inner pressure which tends to close the outer seal  reducing its flow but still able to lubricate it.  In the "Amel way" the two inner seals lips are facing the oil side and, the outer seal facing the propeller thus none of the seals tend to be lubricated once the grease ceases to work.  

A long explanation for a simple question but I hope worth to understand why in this case the "AMEL way" is not the ideal one.

Jose Venegas (Not Jose Luis)
Ipanema SM2k 278
Boston

 


Re: Props and rpm

greatketch@...
 

Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 4500RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now just read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.

Thanks,

Pat

SM #123


New injectors for Perkins 4-154

James Alton
 

Hello fellow Amel owners,   I purchased a complete set of injectors that were supposed to fit my Perkins 4.154 based on my engine serial number which is GA 10002 J 00298 N.  The injectors are new units still in the box and due to the vintage I had them pop tested which they passed.  They came with a complete set of sealing washers for installation. 

    Further investigation revealed that my engine (notice the "J" in the middle of the serial number?) is a Japanese built Mazada block engine that uses the Kiki injection pump.  The new injectors I bought are meant to be used with  the more common CAV injection pump so I cannot use these injectors according to Trans Atlantic Diesel.  I have ordered a rebuilt set of injectors to work with my Kiki pump and wanted to offer the new injectors that I have to any Amel owner that could use them.  I would only need cores sent back to Trans Atlantic Diesel at some point in the future (no rush) so that I could recover the substantial core charge I paid on the rebuilt injectors that I ordered.  The new injectors I am offering are supposed to work with any Perkins 4-154 with the CAV injection pump based on my research but it is best to verify where possible which has proven difficult on this vintage engine.  Here are the details of the new injectors:  Part # on Perkins box:  2645699.  Stamped on the injector:  GZ  CAV England Perkins,  BKB35 SD5247 EH, DES N 5344604.  If anyone would like these injectors for their Amel, let me know along with an address to ship them.  


Best,

James Alton

SV Sueño

Maramu #220


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Craig Briggs
 

Wow, all this "facing in and out" is confusing, and I may have misread your post, if, perhaps, you were trying to see if Jose's nomenclature actually matched the Amel way. 

However,  "Facing in" in Jose's method is the same as Amel's, that is, with the spring (or lip) side facing the "C" drive and preventing oil from escaping. "Facing out" is with what you call the "rubber side" being toward the "C" drive, and the lip or spring side facing the sea, thus preventing water from entering from the sea. Your post assumed that Jose meant just the opposite - he didn't (unless I'm reading everything wrong :-).

Now, as you note, Amel says (or used to say) the first two should be facing in, meaning spring side toward "C" drive oil. The last, or outer one, they say, should be facing out (spring side to the sea).  They seem to have changed that in their Caribbean installations with the first one facing in, ie., spring side toward the oil, and the outer two facing out, spring sides facing the sea, supposedly trying to solve the water-in-oil problem.

Jose suggests the first two should actually face out, ie., spring sides facing the sea, and the outer one should face in, ie., lip side facing the oil of the "C" drive. He posits that will keep all lips lubricated and lessen wear on the bearing. The inner lips, by facing out will let oil seep out of the "C" drive to lubricate the lips and the outer lip will let water come in, also to lubricate the seals, while the inner two keep that water from making its way to the oil in the gear case.  Thus all seals will get lubricated by oil and/or a water and oil slurry.  Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Super that you're one of the few who never has water in their oil. More power to you, and this discussion must seem trivial, but I'd assert most of us do get water in the oil and it's not from a lack of attention to detail, nor failure to follow the Amel way.

Cheers, Craig 


---In amelyachtowners@..., <kimberlite@...> wrote :

Craig,

Please reread what I wrote, I believe you misread what I wrote.

What you wrote is what I said . I call one side the rubber side and the other the spring side.

I was not questioning how many seals went which way.

I have changed my WOB and lip seals about 10 times over the last 16 years and with attention to detail and a lot of silicone grease there will not be a leak. I install them the way Amel originally installed them with the 2 seals nearest the C drive having the spring side facing the oil  and the last seal with the spring side facing the prop. Look at drawing 13 of the appendix in the owner’s manual.

The first time I changed the seals I used the prop grease and it leaked.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

 

 

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:46 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

 

 

Hi Eric,

Just the opposite, I think, but I'm sure Jose will clarify.  He's got the first two seals with the lip (or spring) side facing aft, or "out" and the last (outer) seal facing "in", that is, with its lip side facing forward toward the oil. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Cheers, Craig



---In amelyachtowners@..., <kimberlite@...> wrote :

Jose,

Just to clarify things about this discussion.

I assume that when you say the lip seal is facing in you mean that the rubber side is facing towards the C drive  and when you say out you mean the spring side is facing the C drive.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

.

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:36 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush*** IMPORTANT RESPONSE***

 

 

Danny and Bill,

 

First, I don't take it personally.... (text clipped)



 In my experiment I had both the inner and central seals with the lips facing the propeller (preventing water from coming in but allowing oil to move out)  The outer seal was facing the C-drive, thus acting to prevent the oil from leaking out but allowing some lubrication by the water.  

.....(text clipped)

Fair winds

 

Jose

Ipanema SM2K 278

 

 

 

 

 


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN [1 Attachment]

 

Eric,

Since you gave me some hints on my first C-DRIVE service and Gary Silver provided me with written instructions, I would like to share this. In my personal experience with SM 387 and with over 40 SM & 54 clients, when water enters the C-DRIVE, it has nothing to do with seal orientation. It has always been something else that has been done wrong. 

That said, to RISK the double protection of the oil to try to overcome what, in my experience, is something else done wrong is a RISK that I wouldn't take.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Sat, May 12, 2018, 22:53 'sailormon' kimberlite@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from sailormon included below]

Hi Miles,

Here is the page from my Amel manual. Possibly yours is different. For the first 4 or 5 years I hauled Kimberlite every year and sanded the bottom and painted it. Now I do her every other year.

This summer I had the bottom paint removed to the Gel coat .

 

Every time she was out of the water, I also did the zincs, WOB with seals, line cutter,  and bowthruster.

As we both know these are inexpensive items and I don’t understand the hubbub about trying to make the WOB last longer. I have always installed the seals with the 2 closest to the oil ( as per the drawing) with the spring side facing the oil , and the outboard one with the spring side facing the prop. Just goes to show you that your method and mine both work.  If you look at the text in the drawing they use either 3 8 mm lip seals or 2 12 mm seals.

 

Looking forward to seeing you for the 4th.

 

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

 

 

Jose, Craig,

 

I don’t understand why two years has any significance.  The original Amel instructions were to change the wearing out bearing every 650 hours.  How much the bearing wears is a function of engine hours not time.   Any valid comparison test would need to for the same number of hours at the same engine speed.

For over 5000 engine hours, I have changed the wearing out bearing using lots of silicone grease and following the Amel instructions of the first bearing facing in and the outer two bearings facing out.  I have done this (or Amel has done it) every 650 hours or so.  I have never had any problem of water in the oil or loss of oil.    I have had  my boat since it was new and I learned early on that everything that Amel does or recommends is for a reason.   

 

Regards,

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216, Le Marin Martinique


Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now just read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.

Thanks,

Pat

SM #123


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

Barry Connor
 

Hi Ruedi,
Do you have the Bose entertainment? I had a leak and disconnected things one by one. I found the leak was the salon TV. Disconnected the TV from the system and have not had any current leaks since.

Best Regards
Barry

Barry and Penny Connor
“Lady Penelope II”
Amel 54. #17
Sailing in the Adriatic 


On May 13, 2018, at 10:30, Rudolf Waldispuehl Rudolf@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:

 

Hi everyone 

I do have the same strange behaviour with the 24V negative leak. Sorry, I’m late with my response because I was not on WASABI and tried to trace down last few days.

I found a leak at the Furuno heading sensor box. But from time to time (comes and goes daily) I have a strong Neg. leak. Which I found initially on the forward toilette pump and was happy I could reproduce the leak. Problem solved! 

Few days later I got the same pattern back with the strong Negative leak again. At this time it in not the Furuno sensor, nor the toilet pump. 
I have to disconnect all potential sources one by one again, which I have no time right now. Will do it later and report back.  

Fair winds
Ruedi 
"SY WASABI"
Amel 54. #55

Von: <amelyachtowners@...> on behalf of "'S/V Garulfo' svgarulfo@... [amelyachtowners]" <amelyachtowners@...>
Antworten an: <amelyachtowners@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 25. April 2018 um 16:06
An: Yahoo Group Amel <amelyachtowners@...>
Betreff: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

 

Hi everyone, 

Our DC leakage detector is showing a leak on the negative. I investigated any AC charger + DC USB potential issue as mentioned previously on the group and didn't find any culprit. 

However, it highlighted this strange fact: when I push the switch up to test for bad connection between negative and grounding, the light comes on and slowly goes off in about 3 seconds. If I test again, it doesn't come on. I need to wait for 10 , 15 minutes for it to 'recharge'. It looks like a capacitor discharging. 

Has anybody experienced this before? Does it give a clue to what could be the source of the leak?

Otherwise I'll start the usual investigation disconnecting everything from the batteries end.

Thanks in advance,

Fair winds 

Thomas

S\V GARULFO
Amel 54 #122
Saint Martin, FWI


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

ya_fohi
 

Hi all,

I also see this. I connect my laptop headphone socket to the onboard stereo aux input and found that this is the culprit.

Cheers,
Paul

Ya Fohi - Amel 54 #98


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

Alan Leslie
 

It's the ground wires  you need to disconnect one by one until you find the source.
The equipment that is grounded  is generally equipment that is in contact with salt water and it is salt water leaks that cause the problem. Prime culprits are the head pumps ...leaking shaft seals is the issue.
Otherwise anything that is connected to the AC system (if you have a Calpeda A/C pump ... that is the only connection between AC and DC ground) like a laptop charger that may have internally the DC negative connected to the AC ground.
Good luck
Cheers
Alan
Elyse SM437


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

Rudolf Waldispuehl
 

Hi everyone 

I do have the same strange behaviour with the 24V negative leak. Sorry, I’m late with my response because I was not on WASABI and tried to trace down last few days.

I found a leak at the Furuno heading sensor box. But from time to time (comes and goes daily) I have a strong Neg. leak. Which I found initially on the forward toilette pump and was happy I could reproduce the leak. Problem solved! 

Few days later I got the same pattern back with the strong Negative leak again. At this time it in not the Furuno sensor, nor the toilet pump. 
I have to disconnect all potential sources one by one again, which I have no time right now. Will do it later and report back.  

Fair winds
Ruedi 
"SY WASABI"
Amel 54. #55

Von: <amelyachtowners@...> on behalf of "'S/V Garulfo' svgarulfo@... [amelyachtowners]" <amelyachtowners@...>
Antworten an: <amelyachtowners@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 25. April 2018 um 16:06
An: Yahoo Group Amel <amelyachtowners@...>
Betreff: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

 

Hi everyone, 

Our DC leakage detector is showing a leak on the negative. I investigated any AC charger + DC USB potential issue as mentioned previously on the group and didn't find any culprit. 

However, it highlighted this strange fact: when I push the switch up to test for bad connection between negative and grounding, the light comes on and slowly goes off in about 3 seconds. If I test again, it doesn't come on. I need to wait for 10 , 15 minutes for it to 'recharge'. It looks like a capacitor discharging. 

Has anybody experienced this before? Does it give a clue to what could be the source of the leak?

Otherwise I'll start the usual investigation disconnecting everything from the batteries end.

Thanks in advance,

Fair winds 

Thomas

S\V GARULFO
Amel 54 #122
Saint Martin, FWI


FW: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN

Eric Freedman
 

If you will see in my note to miles. Amel suggested either 3-8 mm lip seals or 2-12 mm lip seals.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376’

 

 

From: sailormon [mailto:kimberlite@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:52 PM
To: 'amelyachtowners@...'
Subject: RE: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN

 

Hi Miles,

Here is the page from my Amel manual. Possibly yours is different. For the first 4 or 5 years I hauled Kimberlite every year and sanded the bottom and painted it. Now I do her every other year.

This summer I had the bottom paint removed to the Gel coat .

 

Every time she was out of the water, I also did the zincs, WOB with seals, line cutter,  and bowthruster.

As we both know these are inexpensive items and I don’t understand the hubbub about trying to make the WOB last longer. I have always installed the seals with the 2 closest to the oil ( as per the drawing) with the spring side facing the oil , and the outboard one with the spring side facing the prop. Just goes to show you that your method and mine both work.  If you look at the text in the drawing they use either 3 8 mm lip seals or 2 12 mm seals.

 

Looking forward to seeing you for the 4th.

 

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

 

 

Jose, Craig,

 

I don’t understand why two years has any significance.  The original Amel instructions were to change the wearing out bearing every 650 hours.  How much the bearing wears is a function of engine hours not time.   Any valid comparison test would need to for the same number of hours at the same engine speed.

For over 5000 engine hours, I have changed the wearing out bearing using lots of silicone grease and following the Amel instructions of the first bearing facing in and the outer two bearings facing out.  I have done this (or Amel has done it) every 650 hours or so.  I have never had any problem of water in the oil or loss of oil.    I have had  my boat since it was new and I learned early on that everything that Amel does or recommends is for a reason.   

 

Regards,

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216, Le Marin Martinique


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN

Eric Freedman
 

Hi Miles,

Here is the page from my Amel manual. Possibly yours is different. For the first 4 or 5 years I hauled Kimberlite every year and sanded the bottom and painted it. Now I do her every other year.

This summer I had the bottom paint removed to the Gel coat .

 

Every time she was out of the water, I also did the zincs, WOB with seals, line cutter,  and bowthruster.

As we both know these are inexpensive items and I don’t understand the hubbub about trying to make the WOB last longer. I have always installed the seals with the 2 closest to the oil ( as per the drawing) with the spring side facing the oil , and the outboard one with the spring side facing the prop. Just goes to show you that your method and mine both work.  If you look at the text in the drawing they use either 3 8 mm lip seals or 2 12 mm seals.

 

Looking forward to seeing you for the 4th.

 

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

 

 

Jose, Craig,

 

I don’t understand why two years has any significance.  The original Amel instructions were to change the wearing out bearing every 650 hours.  How much the bearing wears is a function of engine hours not time.   Any valid comparison test would need to for the same number of hours at the same engine speed.

For over 5000 engine hours, I have changed the wearing out bearing using lots of silicone grease and following the Amel instructions of the first bearing facing in and the outer two bearings facing out.  I have done this (or Amel has done it) every 650 hours or so.  I have never had any problem of water in the oil or loss of oil.    I have had  my boat since it was new and I learned early on that everything that Amel does or recommends is for a reason.   

 

Regards,

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216, Le Marin Martinique


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Eric Freedman
 

Craig,

Please reread what I wrote, I believe you misread what I wrote.

What you wrote is what I said . I call one side the rubber side and the other the spring side.

I was not questioning how many seals went which way.

I have changed my WOB and lip seals about 10 times over the last 16 years and with attention to detail and a lot of silicone grease there will not be a leak. I install them the way Amel originally installed them with the 2 seals nearest the C drive having the spring side facing the oil  and the last seal with the spring side facing the prop. Look at drawing 13 of the appendix in the owner’s manual.

The first time I changed the seals I used the prop grease and it leaked.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

 

 

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:46 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

 

 

Hi Eric,

Just the opposite, I think, but I'm sure Jose will clarify.  He's got the first two seals with the lip (or spring) side facing aft, or "out" and the last (outer) seal facing "in", that is, with its lip side facing forward toward the oil. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Cheers, Craig



---In amelyachtowners@..., <kimberlite@...> wrote :

Jose,

Just to clarify things about this discussion.

I assume that when you say the lip seal is facing in you mean that the rubber side is facing towards the C drive  and when you say out you mean the spring side is facing the C drive.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

.

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:36 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush*** IMPORTANT RESPONSE***

 

 

Danny and Bill,

 

First, I don't take it personally.... (text clipped)



 In my experiment I had both the inner and central seals with the lips facing the propeller (preventing water from coming in but allowing oil to move out)  The outer seal was facing the C-drive, thus acting to prevent the oil from leaking out but allowing some lubrication by the water.  

.....(text clipped)

Fair winds

 

Jose

Ipanema SM2K 278

 

 

 

 

 


Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Cancelling my membership from this forum

VLADIMIR SONSEV
 

Rink,
I regret your decision. Perhaps you are overreacting. Stay with as. 

Vladimir

On May 11, 2018 8:49 AM, "Rink de Haan rinkdehaan@... [amelyachtowners]" <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:
 

Dear all,

I am cancelling my membership from this forum.
After a private discussion with Bill and his obvious immense support I have to conclude we don't share the same values.

Thanks for all good advice and interaction in the past 10 years.

Best regards,

Rink
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Rouse <brouse@...>
Date: 2018-05-11 13:53 GMT+02:00
Subject: From Bill ROUSE
To: Rink de Haan <rinkdehaan@...>
Cc: lji004@gmail..com


Rink,

I incorrectly CC'D Jose at his old email address. His current email address is lji004@...

I am not going to get into a finger pointing situation with you. I mentioned Judy to Jose because he knows Judy. And, even if he didn't know Judy, the fact that she was in recovery has as much to do with it as you stating that I am a Texan.

You have been rude, childish, and offensive to not only me, but others in the Group. You are disruptive and contribute very little good information.

I have always stated that I am the self-appointed Amel Advocate in the Amel Owners Group. I know that I have saved others tens of thousands of Euros by preaching the mantra to "not change anything for a year." I have also advocated keeping your Amel pure and unadulterated. I call this the Amel Way. I am not going to respond to your Solar Arch accusations, or anything else.

I have blocked your email address and will no longer see your emails because I do not want to see them. I suggest that you do the same because you obviously have a problem with me.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:36 Rink de Haan <rinkdehaan@...> wrote:
Dear Bill and Jose Luis,

I appreciatie the opportunity to discuss Amel Owner Group communication policy together with Jose Luis.

In my 10 years as an owner and member of this group I have never insulted, nor reacted negatively towards Bill.
I have checked all my postings on the slightest possibility of this. I have found only positive reactions. So I would like to ask Bill to provide the examples. 
Bill is confusing me with someone else or he is just dishonest and trying to influence the discussion with Jose Luis. 
I am also really sorry for Bill and his wife of her being in hospital though I don't understand where it is related to our discussion. So let's please stick to the factual part of the discussion.

I apologize for binging the Texan aspect in if it hurts Bill's feelings. I was referring to a posting of Bill dated  April 19, 2015 were he stated that he is much aware of the Texan element when he stated "I hope that I do not come across too arrogant, but I am a Texan and it is in my DNA...some things cannot be helped. ;)". I am in the opinion that Bill crossed the line of decency in the discussion with Jose. He did not responded to the real message of Jose, but merely turned it into a rant for The Amel Way (of which every member of this group is aware). 
No opinion should be used in a way that it creates frustrated members and block any discussion outside of The Amel Way.
The example of the arch is just to question if The Captain would have advised to do this (as The Amel Way). 

I would like to ask Jose Luis to have a close look at the conversation Bill had with Jose and determine if this is in line with the way of the forum where exchanging views and thoughts are to be treated with respect and not to be killed by having ownership of the absolute truth. No one has!

If Jose Luis decides I crossed the line, I will apologize to Bill and the group.

Leaves me to state that I absolutely value Bill's contributions though the way he puts them sometimes is hard to swallow. 

Looking forward for your replies,

Rink




2018-05-10 23:50 GMT+02:00 Bill Rouse <brouse@...>:
Rink,

I have never said a single insulting or rude word to you.

You have personally insulted me on the Amel Owners Group 3 times in about 5 years.

You asked for the Group Moderator to talk to me because I support the Amel Way and because I am a Texan. I am very proud to say you are correct.

I copied the Group Owner so that he is aware of what you want and so you can email him directly.

BTW, I received your last public insult to me on the Amel Owners Group today when I was consoling my wife at the hospital...she was recovering from surgery. 

There is one more sentence in this email which is from my heart, but not visible to you because we are not face-to-face. When a Texan has stern words for someone, it is always face-to-face.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970




Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Cancelling my membership from this forum

Alexandre Uster von Baar
 

Rink,

I am very glad you are not leaving the forum.
Sometime in the heat of the action we write things quickly.

I remember long ago, I wrote that I stop a diesel engine blocking the air intake with my hand , I got slammed… my feeling got a bit hurt, I could have argued about the (small size) of the engine, bla bla bla, and actually be right about it, but overall people were right, I should have use a piece of wood. I am glad I didn’t leave the forum back then and I think a few people are as well.

So definitely glad you are staying.

Sincerely, Alexandre




--------------------------------------------

On Sat, 5/12/18, Danny and Yvonne SIMMS simms@xtra.co.nz [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Cancelling my membership from this forum
To: amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 12, 2018, 1:36 PM


 










With you on that
RinkRegardsDannySM 299 Ocean
Pearl
On 12 May 2018 at 21:46 "Rink de Haan
rinkdehaan@gmail.com [amelyachtowners]"
<amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  
Thanks Jose, you are right.With my tone of voice I didn’t
achieve what I wanted. I apologize to everyone who’s
offended.Let’s keep up
the good work of this forum.RegardsRink 

 
From:
amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com
<amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of
lji0041@gmail.com [amelyachtowners]
<amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 5:13:27 PM
To:
amelyachtowners@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Cancelling
my membership from this
forum  Hi
mates,
I am sorry if I
cannot follow the details on this. I just made an exercise
to look in the database.
What I could see is that you guys
have helped each other and the rest of mates through all
these years.
It is a
pity that we cannot see each other sharing some beers in the
canteen, as if we were on the same port. Probably it would
be different.
Definitely, the email and sequels
were invented by the devil, so we have to be careful in how
we use it, because we cannot see our faces and lose a lot of
the communication.
Forums like this, where the goal is
to help each other, cannot afford losing valued members. I
wish you could pick up the phone and see what is really
going on.
Wish I could
be with you guys in the middle of a real storm. I know I
would be safe.
Jose