So when I was tightening down the lid on the raw water strainer, one of the studs or bolts broke where the pin runs through at the bottom. ( the pin allows the bolt to swing out from the cover lid so you don't have to remove the wing nuts all the way). The strainer housing showed signs of corrosion ( it was green) and there was no bonding wire attached. When I was installing the replacement strainer ( I think Perko) I dropped it on the bilge pump, so now I have a new pump also, but I noticed a bonding wire terminal screw. The boat is in salt water, at a marina with shore power. But when I replaced all the gate type through hull valves with ball valves, at the sugestion of the surveyor during the purchase a few months ago, (mostly because the old valve handles were rusting) I noticed none of the through hull fitting or valves were bonded. The through hulls themselves look great and were not replaced by me on this 1985 boat. The prop shaft strut had some minor pitting, which the yard guy did not recommend anything other than coating with the Interlux barrier coat product. I've tried to digest the information in Calder's Boat Systems book and read a "good" article on the West Adviser that was mentioned in an archived posting, but I am still at a loss as to whether to bond all the through hull metals. I conclude that if you do so incorrectly you spred the electrolisis problem to all metal in contact with salt water and the weakest, least noble, part gets distroyed quickly. I also conclude that what is preferred is to bond in issolation, but I can't figure out what, if anything, I should be doing. The keel bolts are very accessable and the keel is exposed ( or not encapsulated, if that is the term). What have others with more, actually any, experience done in my situation?
- Status
hunter's rationale
I called Hunter about this when I first commissioned my boat, and they told me that they didn't bond the seacocks because doing so makes the boat much more susceptable to damage from lightning. In their opinion, the risks outweighed the benefits.
I called Hunter about this when I first commissioned my boat, and they told me that they didn't bond the seacocks because doing so makes the boat much more susceptable to damage from lightning. In their opinion, the risks outweighed the benefits.
Do some research
And figure it out for yourself. "Lightning protection systems do not prevent lightning strikes. They may, in fact, increase the possibilities of the boat being struck. The purpose of lightning protection is to reduce the damage to the boat and the possibility of injuries or death to the passengers from a lightning strike." from the first ("related") link. Take a look at: http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000007/d000007.html http://www.thomson.ece.ufl.edu/lightning/title.html http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CB/lightning.html http://www.seacom.us/pages/3/ and if you used "Google" you can find a whole lot more info out in the "WWW" (Wild, wide, world).
And figure it out for yourself. "Lightning protection systems do not prevent lightning strikes. They may, in fact, increase the possibilities of the boat being struck. The purpose of lightning protection is to reduce the damage to the boat and the possibility of injuries or death to the passengers from a lightning strike." from the first ("related") link. Take a look at: http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000007/d000007.html http://www.thomson.ece.ufl.edu/lightning/title.html http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CB/lightning.html http://www.seacom.us/pages/3/ and if you used "Google" you can find a whole lot more info out in the "WWW" (Wild, wide, world).
- Status