Quixotic forum posts in last 60 days

My Pantaenius policy PDS says:

s7. Rigging Exclusion
Unless otherwise stated in your Schedule, this Insurance does not cover any loss or damage caused by the failure of spars
or rigging (or parts thereof) which are made from wood, fibreglass or galvanized metal, or are a rotating rig, folding rig,
wing rig, unstayed rig, carbon rigs, or any rig where the standing rigging has not been replaced in full for over 10 years
unless such failure is proximately caused by impact, collision, grounding, fire, theft, lightning or total loss of the vessel.

As I read this (NB I am not an expert) your vessel is covered (subject to all the other Ts and Cs), even with rigging more than 10 years old, if the proximate cause is impact, collision, grounding, fire, theft, lightning or total loss of vessel. I take that also to mean that if the proximate cause is rigging failure when its more than 10 years old, then you're not covered.

There's lots of other stuff in the PDS, though not about rigging. Best to read the product disclosure statement and policy Ts and Cs as that's the only way to know when you're buying what you are and aren't covered for.

Interesting. Is this flag/kite peculiar to Japan? I tend to associate a red and white flag with indicating a pilot vessel.

Do they also show day shapes, such as a black diamond for towing with line more than 200 metres, and lights at night - 2 white lights for towing with line less than 200m and 3 white lights for more than 200m?

Not that I expect to be sailing in Japan anytime...

Fair to say that increased sag in the headsail by loosening tension in forestay less of a thing when the headsail luff is in a furler foil on the forestay?

Sorry, amended/added to my post before I saw your reply.

bottom 2 text boxes:

This of any use? While it is a specific implementation, it shows ground going to negative busbar, which is in turn connected to the BMS which in turn is shown as grounded to common earth. My guess is that still leaves you with the question as to whether to connect the 'ground' to your hull. Do you ground anything/everything else to your hull?

Select to expand quote

woko said..

Lazzz said..
Just about to install a new Victron Inverter & wondering where I should connect the Chassis to ground connection on my steel boat??

I could be wrong, but I think chassis grounding is a land thing, detailed for hard wired installations. I put a dedicated fuse on the battery 400a just to cover my butt.

Again, I don't know what model you have and what you're connecting it to, but the manual for the Victron MultiPlus-II 230V, (see link in previous post) says (Section 4) [bolding added]:

! Warning GROUNDING INSTRUCTIONS - This marine unit should be connected to a grounded, metal, permanent wiring system; or an equipment-grounding conductor should be run with circuit conductors and connected to equipment-grounding terminal or lead on unit. Connections to unit should comply with all local codes and ordinances

...suggests to me grounding isn't only a land thing.

Manual also has a table of DC battery fuse ratings and battery cable sizes depending on run length, by model and battery Ah.

I assume you've got the installation instructions and the manual?

The manual for a Victron MultiPlus-II 230V (www.victronenergy.com/media/pg/MultiPlus-II_230V/en/safety-instructions.html#UUID-49c10f22-7174-f7f9-932c-8fd46d8eff2e) says as below (bold type is from the manual), but you should refer to the documents for your model.

1. IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS - Save these instructions!
In general
Please read the documentation supplied with this product first, so that you are familiar with the safety signs and directions before
using the product.

This product is designed and tested according to international standards. The equipment should be used only for the designated
application.

! Warning - These servicing instructions are for use by qualified personnel only. To reduce the risk of
electric shock, do not perform any servicing other than that specified in the operating instructions
unless you are qualified to do so

!The product is used in combination with a permanent energy source (battery). A dangerous electrical voltage
can occur at the input and/or output terminals, even if the equipment is switched off. Always turn off the AC
power and disconnect the battery before performing maintenance.

The product contains no internal user-serviceable parts. Do not remove the front panel, and do not put the product into operation
unless all panels are fitted. All maintenance should be performed by qualified personnel. Internal fuses are not user-replaceable.
A unit with suspected blown fuses should be taken to an authorized service centre for evaluation.

Never use the product at sites where gas or dust explosions could occur. Refer to the specifications provided by the manufacturer
of the battery to ensure that the battery is suitable for use with this product. The battery manufacturer's safety instructions should
always be observed.

This appliance is not intended for use by persons (including children) with reduced physical, sensory or mental capabilities, or
lack of experience and knowledge unless they have been given supervision or instruction concerning the use of the appliance by
a person responsible for their safety. Children should be supervised to ensure they do not play with the appliance.

Installation
Read the installation instructions before commencing installation activities. Follow the local national wiring standards, regulations,
and installation instructions for electrical work. The installation shall be in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code, Part 1.
The wiring methods shall be in accordance with the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70.

This product is a safety class I device (supplied with a ground terminal for safety purposes).Its AC input and/or output
terminals must be provided with uninterruptible grounding for safety purposes. An additional grounding point is located
on the product's exterior. The ground conductor should be at least 4mm(2).If it can be assumed that the grounding protection
is damaged, the product should be taken out of operation and prevented from accidentally being put into operation again; contact
qualified maintenance personnel.

Ensure that the connection cables are provided with fuses and circuit breakers. Never replace a protective device with a
component of a different type. Refer to the manual for the correct part.

Do not invert neutral and phase when connecting the AC.

Check before switching the device on whether the available voltage source conforms to the configuration settings of the product
as described in the manual.

Ensure that the equipment is used under the correct operating conditions. Never operate it in a wet or dusty environment. Ensure
that there is always sufficient free space around the product for ventilation and that those ventilation openings are not blocked.
Install the product in a heatproof environment. Ensure that there are no chemicals, plastic parts, curtains or other textiles, etc. in
the immediate vicinity of the equipment.

This inverter is provided with an internal isolation transformer providing reinforced insulation

Well spotted. Therein lies the problem, and so my interest in fittings. I'm looking to get a lighter whisker pole, likely an extendable one, such as made by selden, which could be stored up the mast. But that entails finding a pole fitting to match my bell fittings, or replacing them. The bells are attached via a pin so I may be able to keep the traveller and traveller car but swap the actual fitting. I'm also looking into whether Harken bell fittings or Francespar bell fittings, both of which I can still source, are compatible with my existing fittings.

One of a number of things on The List which I'm working through as time, opportunity, competing priorities and finances permit.

If money was no object, I'd get a carbon pole, but that'd be an incongruous extravagance.

Also known as a bayonet fitting I think. I've some old cannon bell fittings which, like my ronstan track, are no longer available. Not currently
in need of replacement, but likely impossible to source if ever needed. I don't fly my spinnaker as the two poles I have are more than 5m long and 100mm diameter, and so weigh quite a bit. Wrestling them on the foredeck in any kind of swell when single handing would not be sensible. The mast track is not long enough to store one vertically up the mast, not to mention putting all that weight up the mast.

I hope your new fitting serves you well.

Select to expand quote

woko said..
20/20 vision in hindsight, thanks for the update. I use a handy billy ( running back stay tackle)to let the traveler out if I get excited enough. If I was inspired I could do something similar, got any pics of your set up ?

Here's a piccy:

I'm not putting it out as exemplary. It's what I rigged using already installed fittings (saddles and jamming cleats), presumably left from a previous set up. But it's worked well enough since.

So far as I know it was made from scratch. So the stainless steel body was CNC EDM wire cut from a block of steel, the plastic inserts were 3D printed, the sprung stop plunger and its collar were machined from steel and even the internal spring was hand made. Ditto the block of rubber. The knurled nob may have been from something else, but I think it was also made from scratch.
I had to take a file to the inside of the inserts
as they were a just a bit too tight on the track. To be fair, the fabricator didn't have access to the track. I put vernier callipers on it and sent him photos of the callipers on the track for measurements of width and thickness. So needing a bit of polishing with a file was a better result than being too loose.

The job wasn't cheap so probably not a less costly option for your spinnaker pole car.

Out of curiosity, is your Forespar spinnaker pole receptacle a bell fitting?

Back in August 2024 I posted looking for a ronstan 1.5 inch track traveller stop.

www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Sailing/General/adjustable-traveller-stop-for-old-1-5-inch-Ronstan-I-beam-track--

Closing off this one (thread too old to add to it), I could not source a second hand stop, though I searched far and wide (including second hand dealers overseas). I took the one I still had to a metal fabricator I found.

Here's the result showing the old beside the new, and the new on the track.




I'm mightily impressed at what the fabricator was able to make, though it took him some months between other work. The body is cut from stainless rather than aluminium so it is stronger than the original.

However, in the meantime I rigged port and starboard 4-1 pulley systems for controlling the traveller, and so have been sailing without needing the stops.

An important lesson for me that sometimes the best answer is not necessarily to replace what I had.

Select to expand quote

BGR said..

The current setup would give me about a 5:1 scope in 8m of water, but I'm worried that might not be enough of that in actual chain?

When calculating scope you have to include freeboard + depth. So if you have 1m height of roller or fairlead above water, then 5m depth plus 1m freeboard = 6m so anchoring with 5m of chain plus 35m of rope = 40m divided by 6 gives you scope on 6.7:1. In 8m of water your scope would by 40 / 9 = 4.4:1

As Gary says you should add more chain and also another type of anchor if you're going anywhere that doesn't have a sandy/muddy bottom.

Anchored at Mickeys Bay south west end of South Bruny Island, looking NW out into Great Taylor Bay and beyond. Tuesday 20 Jan.

www.rigrite.com/A-Main/hardware_M.php

Useful site for hard to get parts for older boats. Don't think they're second hand parts tho'

Select to expand quote

Kankama said..
..Getting it down in a blow takes some technical tricks though with no main to blanket the douse..

Have you thought about putting a sock on it? A light but strong cloth tube with a reinforced circular opening, as long as the spinnaker is tall, you launch the spinnaker in the sock, then use an endless line to the top of the spinnaker to pull the sock up to the top of the spinnaker and it sits there scrunched up. To dowse you use the endless line to pull the sock down over the spinnaker, and then lower the spinnaker in the sock.

Centre of effort further from the mast on a gaff rig. But I'd have thought the long keel would help, and that the C of E of the main is a bit further forward with the main mast on a ketch (tho further aft for the mizzen) , which should also help when running on the main.

As to twin headsails, my inner forestay is masthead also. So a solent rig. Set up that way by the previous owner for trade wind sailing - running before the trade winds with a headsail out either side.

I think choices depend a bit on your rig. I've a masthead rig with a No.1 on a furler that's 640 square feet compared to my main which is just 360 square feet. Furling my No. 1 makes a huge difference to my boat speed.

Evens so, if running square down wind (or close to square), having just the No. 1 out makes adjusting sail area a doddle with the furler, and keeps the centre of effort forward of the mast and so puts less turning pressure (boat wanting to round up) than having the main fully out one side. Yes the sail's out of shape when partly furled, but when running that's less of an issue (at least to me).

However, once one moves to reaching, balance under No. 1 only, becomes problematic, (I recently sailed briefly on a beam reach with full No. 1 only, when wind was gusting to 27 knots. The boat sailed, but helming was interesting.) The problem for me is that with that much sail mostly forward of the mast, once one moves from running to closer to the wind than broad reaching, the boat is not balanced. And furling to reduce sail moves the centre of effort further forward.

But, I also have a staysail on a furler on the inner forestay, about 290 square feet. So if its blowing a bit hard, I can happily run or reach or, at a pinch, close haul on my stay sail as the centre of effort is a lot further back/ closer to the mast, compared to the No. 1.

In a stiff breeze or more, tho', the boat is better balanced on anything from a beam reach forward with some main, reefed as approp. for the wind strength as well as some headsail. But in strong winds and when running I set just my staysail, partly furled as necessary, as that puts the least pressure on my rig, while giving me greater flexibility to adjust the amount of sail. I'm not racing and if I'm doing 6 knots or better, that's good enough for me.

If one has to tack going into the wind, then for me, having some main is very useful as having the C of E further back makes tacking easier, whereas tacking with the C of E forward of the mast (ie when flying headsail only) is more difficult.

I cant really tack well on No.1 only (ie no main) as I have to furl it to get it past the inner forestay, As I furl, I lose boat speed to make the tack. But that's because of my rig with its permanent inner forestay, good in some ways but a tradeoff in others.

I'm not saying that my choices are necessarily the right ones., but the forum is for discussion, so I'm putting in my 2c worth. No doubt others may set me straight!

And, If one has a different rig, such as a fractional rig and/or without a second headsail on an inner forestay, and/or if one doesn't have a furler on your head sail, then choices may be different.

Select to expand quote

JonE said..
Was it the fridge, hardware, firmware or software?

In the end it was only the proximity of the compass to a conduit carrying 7 amps intermittently to the fridge compressor. Everything else was a red herring.

Select to expand quote

EastCoastSail said..
Just read this, rolled over and lifted the deck hatch. My power to the Ozziefridge is about 75mm away from my Raymarine EV1 compass.
I haven't noticed anything odd, but I better do a bearing check.

My fridge draws 7 amps when on. Yours may draw less and so generate less of a field. The challenge for me was the fridge is more off than on and the compass was correct when the fridge was not drawing current. So if you do a bearing check you'll need to do it with the fridge on and with the fridge off. I identified my compass error coming into Batemans Bay following the Square Head light in. Suddenly my heading deviated about 20 degrees. That started the whole saga for me of trying to figure out what was wrong.

Said I'd report back after calibration. Calibration of Precision 9 compass , with fridge turned off, reported local field of 10%. So less than 12%. I've used the autopilot up and down the Derwent and D'Entrecasteaux Channel, with fridge cutting in and out, and it seems to be working OK. No sign of the roughly 20 degree swings that started this saga more than a year ago.
I'll still contemplate possible better relocation of compass at some future point, but that'll mean running new network connection and as it seems to be working well enough now, it's down the list of priorities for now.

FWIW, I believe there's an OpenCPN implementation for Android, although based on the website it hasn't been updated since version 5.0.4 in 2019 or so. There's no iOS version of OpenCPN.

The Android version is still available on Google App store for $14.05. I presume on top of that you need to source the charts from o-charts. Apparently there are some tricks and traps about getting the chart files into the right place under Android secure file locations.

Given lack of updates for several years, support / compatibility may be an issue.

Select to expand quote

lydia said..
As to the last part, ISO is much wider in scope than ABS and addresses not just construction scantlings.
The ISO standard is a large number about 30 sub-standards which are worth a read.

The barrier to reading the ISO standards is that there are, as you say, 30 or more (more) sub-standards including 10 sub-standards just for hull construction and scantlings, and each of those 10 parts costs $300 to $400 AUD, so it's not something your curious amateur is likely to access.

So, while one race is not definitive evidence, the 2025 Sydney Hobart started beating into decent size seas, putting boats (and crew) under some stress.

129 boats entered, 128 of which started, of which 35 retired from the race - 27.3 per cent of starters. Four of these listed hull or keel damage - a GP42, two TP52s and a Reichel Pugh Maxi 72.

There were 13 Beneteau in the race, six First 40s, two First 45s, two First 50s, a First 44.7, an Oceanis 47.3, and a 47.7. Of the 13 Beneteau, 3 retired (23.1 per cent - a bit lower than the average), two First 40s and one First 50. One for rigging issues, one for steering damage and one for medical issues. None listed hull or keel damage.

In IRC overall, 7 Beneteau finished 28th, 40th, 50th, 51st, 60th, 61st, 74th and in PHS overall 3 Beneteau finished 1st, 8th, 14th.

FWIW, first 2 reefs always rigged. Two line reefing - leech lines led back to jammers at cockpit, and two luff downhaul lines back to jammers at cockpit, But have to go to the mast for luff downhaul to hook up whichever line is next. Have both genoa and staysail on furlers. If wind gets beyond 2 reefs in main, then drop main and sail on staysail. Have sailed downwind in mid twenties gusting low thirties with two reefs in main and partly furled genoa (staysail furler wasn't working properly at the time). Probably at the limit of what's sensible, but as apparent wind reduced by boat speed, got away with it. Another time, have made better than 6 knots boat speed reaching on staysail only in mid twenties breeze.

But of course, if money's no object, why not build the entire hull out of duplex stainless!? au.boats.com/sailing-boats/2024-hoek-78-7339052/ tanielle.com.au/

As I understand it, coming up the river they used a spinnaker pole to hold out the clew of an asymmetric spinnaker, in breach of rule 55.3, which says:

55.3 Sheeting Sails
No sail shall be sheeted over or through any device that exerts
outward pressure on a sheet or clew of a sail at a point from
which, with the boat upright, a vertical line would fall outside the
hull or deck, except:
(a) a headsail clew may be connected (as defined in The
Equipment Rules of Sailing) to a whisker pole, provided
that a spinnaker is not set;
(b) any sail may be sheeted to or led above a boom that is
regularly used for a sail and is permanently attached to the
mast from which the head of the sail is set;
(c) a headsail may be sheeted to its own boom that requires
no adjustment when tacking; and
(d) the boom of a sail may be sheeted to a bumkin.
55.4 Headsails and Spinnakers
For the purposes of rules 54 and 55 and Appendix G, the
definitions of 'headsail' and 'spinnaker' in The Equipment Rules
of Sailing shall be used.

I may be wrong but as I understand it, while you can use a spinnaker pole to hold out the luff side (windward corner) of a spinnaker, you cannot use one to hold out the clew (lee side). You can hold out the clew of a jib, using a whisker pole, but not a spinnaker. The difference between a jib and a spinnaker is the width of the sail measured from half way up the luff to half way up the leech, compared to the length of the foot of the sail. If less than 75% of the foot length it is a jib, If more than 75% of the foot length then it's a spinnaker.

In the case of an asymmetric spinnaker, the clew is the bottom corner not attached to the bowsprit, or prodder.

So BNC, in poling out the clew of a spinnaker, broke sheeting rule 55.3.

It was apparently an innocent mistake, used to stabilise the sail while they tidied up the boat for arrival. Bit of a bugger, but nevertheless, against the rules.

PS rule 55 is from the Australian Racing Rules 2025-28 which apply to all AS races not just S-H and are also based on the World Sailing rules, so not peculiar to Australia. Ditto the definition of a spinnaker versus a jib (headsail), which is in the WS Equipment Rules. The distinction about using a spinnaker pole on the luff / windward side is my amateur interpretation, so may be incorrect.

Starting this to avoid thread drift / flame wars in the cost of S-H thread,

Standards are a funny thing. We all rely on them and without them markets would be fragmentary with a plethora of competing proprietary approaches. Think Australian rail gauges pre-federation. Or imagine trying to buy bolts and nuts (and spanners for them) if every one making bolts and nuts decided their own thread pitch and profile, shaft size and head and nut size. Once you started with a particular supplier you'd have to go back to them every time (think Apple) as anyone else would have their own different characteristics. Almost everything we buy and use is underpinned by standards. Sometimes these are picked up in laws and regulations, but mostly they aren't.

In many cases, there is a commercial incentive to develop and agree standards, because it means manufacturers can consolidate and access a much larger market than if they run their own race. In a market without standards, if I want to expand my market share I either have to convince buyers my product is superior (think Apple) or cheaper, or I have to manufacture versions that are the same as my competitors so I can sell to their customers. But to access the total market I have to do that for most of the different versions of the product if I want to access all the potential buyers of that type of product. That means loss of scale in manufacturing, and maintaining a huge and diverse inventory, increasing my overheads and reducing my profits. If I can round up some of the larger makers., and we can thrash out between us an agreed standard, then we can all manufacture to that standard, reducing the complexity, reducing inventory, and selling to most or all of the potential buyers.

So makers often have a direct stake and interest in setting standards. In doing so, they all try to influence the standard to be closest to their version of the product. In their dreams, it is their version that is agreed without alteration, to be the standard.

In practice, standards are developed by working groups of technical people (many of whom may work for industry bodies or companies, but also often some who are just technical experts), and have to pass muster with a technical committee - in the case of ISO that means a committee on which countries' standards bodies are represented, with one country having one vote. There is a good deal of argument and slow (sometimes glacial) progress towards a common proposed standard. In general no single maker can get their own way all the way through the process.

The small sailing craft (<24m) ISO technical Committee is ISO/TC 188. There are 24 countries participating in it, including Australia (through Standards Australia), and another 22 countries as observers. The current chairperson is Mr Craig Scholten who is on the board of the International Marine Certification Institute and is representing the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). He is also Technical Vice President of the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC). The previous chairperson for 9 years was Thomas Marhevko who is or was a Vice President, Engineering Standards at the National Marine Manufacturers Association based in Chicago, Illinois.

There's no doubt there is 'small p' politicking and negotiation that goes on in reaching agreement to proposed standards, but there is also, usually, a strong element of professional technical expertise informing the standard, as technical experts do not want to be associated with a technically inadequate standard.

It would be odd indeed if standards diverged completely from what manufacturers are making, but it is also generally not the case that a single manufacturer or even an aligned group of manufacturers can create an internationally recognised standard that is sub par technically simply to cater to their own interests, as there are generally too many others involved including technical experts, and layers of approval that have to be got through.

There've been a few posts on keel bolts - notably Lydia's on dropping and refurbing SS34 Defiance's keel www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Sailing/General/Defiance-story-continues-?page=2

and also www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Sailing/General/Is-your-keel-really-about-to-fall-off--Featuring-Marine-Surveyor-Ben-Sutcliffe-Davis?page=1#19

As the owner of a boat with stainless steel keel bolts, I've been looking into this a bit.

We tend to think of stainless steel on boats as 316. But we also know that even 316 stainless rusts ("tea stains" on pulpits and so on), and in particular that it can suffer crevice corrosion, which is corrosion of stainless that occurs in the absence of oxygen. 316 is not intended to be constantly submerged in saltwater.

For those with stainless keel bolts, crevice corrosion isn't an issue if the bolts are, and always have been, kept dry. But of course while the keel may be well sealed on the outside, bolts are often exposed in bilges, and so there is a possibility in older boats that seawater has worked its way down the bolt shaft over a decade or three.

In looking into this I've become aware that there's a lot more to stainless steel than 304 and 316. And in particular there are stainless steels that have been specifically developed to survive constant submersion in saltwater - for example in oil and gas rigs and desalination plants - and even more corrosive environments (eg some kinds of chemical plants).

The measure or resistance to corrosion in stainless steel is the pitting resistance equivalent number (PREN). Pitting resistance is also relevant to resistance to stress and crevice corrosion. It is generally agreed that alloys with a PREN of 40 or more are able to resist pitting and crevice corrosion long term (for many years).

PREN for 304 is generally 17-21, which is why it isn't much use in marine environments.
For 316 PREN is generally about 23 to 29. This is good enough for exposure to sea water, but it will still rust a bit, and it is not intended to be constantly submerged.

Both 304 and 316 are austenitic steels. This relates to the nature of their crystalline structure.

Another type of stainless is known as Duplex. The name comes because it has a hybrid crystalline structure - both ferritic and austenitic.
Duplex 2205 generally has a PREN of 31 to 38, and there is a subset of Duplex known as Super Duplex 2507 which has a PREN generally between 38 to 45. There is a trade marked Super Duplex alloy - Zeron 100 (UNS S32760) - which includes chromium, nickel, molybdenum, nitrogen, copper and tungsten and has a PREN greater than 40.

And there is also a "super austenitic" stainless - AL-6XN (UNS N08367) - which has a much higher nickel content (24%), while still having 20 -22% chromium, 6% molybdenum, plus traces of Nitrogen (0.18-0.25%). AL-6XN has a PREN of 43 to 46.

It is possible to source stainless steel bolts made of Duplex 2205, Super Duplex 2507, Zeron 100 and AL-6XN. These are much superior to 316 in terms of corrosion resistance, including resistance to crevice corrosion. And as luck would have it, they are also significantly stronger than 316 - some are twice as strong.

Another consideration is that duplex stainless steels are magnetic. They are not as strongly magnetic as iron or ordinary steel, but they are not as non-magnetic as 316. If this is an issue, then consider AL-6XN (UNS N08367) which as a type of austenitic stainless, has the same non-magnetic properties as 316.

Of course these varieties of stainless steel are not generally available in your local shop, and they are more expensive than 316.

However, if you are nagged by doubts about your stainless steel keel bolts, such that you plan to replace them, then you may want to consider getting replacements made of one of these stronger and much more corrosion resistant alloys.

If you stick with 316, another consideration is passivation. This is treatment - often with acid (usually nitric, but can be citric), but can also be done in other ways - which removes surface iron and causes formation of a thicker chromium oxide layer that gives stainless its resistance to corrosion. It is used where 316 stainless (and other stainless steels) will be exposed to a more corrosive environment. Done properly, it increases resistance to corrosion including to pitting and crevice corrosion. It doesn't completely prevent corrosion.

PS I should note there are other stainless steel alloys than those mentioned that also have higher corrosion resistance than 316. One is "hyper austenitic" UNS 32707 which has a PREN of 44 to 53. Other examples include the various "Incoloy" alloys produced by the Special Metals Corporation in the US (www.specialmetals.com/documents/aqueous-corrosion-handbook.pdf).

Obtaining bolts in many of these specialist alloys would likely require finding an overseas supplier willing to fill a small order, which may prove a challenge.

Any fluxgate compass gurus out there? I have a B&G setup. The main compass is a Precision 9. Back in late November I noticed when coming into Batemans Bay that the compass heading did not chime with visual ref points by about 20 degrees. I'd updated the chartplotter software as we were coming in once we got within phone range, as I was sick of the nag screen, which frequently reminded me there were updates available. When I contacted B&G support, they said the problem was a bug between the updated chartplotter software and the autopilot computer software, which needed to be updated also, requiring a microSD card to load it after download on a laptop. Went through all that, and a recalibration of the compass - slow 390 degree turn - and a recalibration of the autopilot, first dockside then on the water. Problems seemed to be fixed after one more compass recalibration. Heading agreed with the Square Head lead light bearing.

Next day, coming into Eden, compass heading was off again by about twenty degrees. When heading by eye into Twofold, the compass heading thought the boat was pointing south of Boyd tower at one point.

So an intermittent error of about 20 degrees.

Currently down in Tassie, and have been dealing with local certified B&G chap. Of course the first suspicion was stray metal near the compass. So shifted every possible culprit at least half a metre away from compass. Did multiple recalibrations, but compass heading would drift off not long after. So that wasn't the problem.

Next, added an extension lead and repositioned the compass away from any possible electrical interference, re-did calibrations, but problem remained.

In the last week or so it has got much worse. To the point where I have apparently mastered the art of sailing almost backwards. On a short trip under motor, compass insisted boat was headed 150 degrees off the actual heading. Needless to say this mucks up all the heading dependent information. So wind direction display is nonsense, current is nonsense, and of course the autopilot is unusable.

Next step is to replace the compass. Currently awaiting arrival of replacement. My concern is that I don't know why the compass has developed an error. And if there is an external cause, will I have a repeat problem with new compass (they aren't cheap, and they are central for the navigation system). Two possibilities I can think of is a broken winding in one or more of the nine coils used to measure the magnetic field. Another is that the EEPROM, which I assume is how the calibration is stored, has stopped working.

If so, new compass should fix the problem. But leaves the question as to whether it was just an unlucky dud compass (it's only ~2 years since installed by PO) or something has fried its innards. I have fired up the inverter, the HF and VHF radios and used a gauss meter app on an iPhone to see if there are any stray fields coming from wiring and aerial cables that are nearest the compass but have not detected anything out of the ordinary.