Sorting out the urethanes

I’VE DONE MY FAIR SHARE of painting boats, both wooden and fiberglass, but I was only vaguely aware of the difference between polyester urethane and acrylic urethane. However, I was looking through some notes the other day and came across a copy of an e-mail that explains things quite nicely.

I believe I originally found it on the Cape Dory bulletin board. In any case, it was posted by someone called Brandon, of Fort Lauderdale, who owned a 1985 Cape Dory 25D called Seamona. Here is what he had to say:

“The difference between the two, without getting long and boring boils down to this:

“Polyester urethane molecules are much smaller than acrylic molecules. So when they cure, the polyester urethane forms a tighter matrix, which gives a harder, more abrasion-resistant film, with better chemical resistance than acrylic.

“Acrylics are more forgiving in application, trap less dust, and are buffable. When an acrylic urethane is buffed, due to the lower cross-link density the melting point of the resin is much lower, i.e., it is softer. When buffing is carried out the resin-rich layer "melts" and reflows into the scratch. It is possible to retain an intact resin-rich layer at the surface protecting the pigments, and not losing significant thickness. The edges of touch-ups can be blended carefully in the same way. Long-term performance is not affected, as much of the resin layer remains.

“With the polyester urethane, the paint is a very hard, rigid film, and to get rid of a scratch you need to cut deeply into the paint, leading to the exposure of the pigments. This looks shiny to begin with but the long-term performance of the finish is now compromised.
“I am currently following the build of a 95 footer in Viareggio, Italy. We are using Awlcraft (Snow White), and almost finished painting her. I am happy to use the acrylic because we have found fairing issues on the hull, even with the white paint, and with the acrylic we can re-fair this 6-square-foot area, reshoot the area, and blend in. We dont have to repaint the entire 95-foot topside as we would with the polyester!

“OK . . . so maybe I got long and boring.”
Today’s Thought

Paintin’s not important. The important thing is keepin’ busy.

— Anna Mary Robertson Moses (“Grandma Moses”)

Tailpiece

Mary has a cool, cool gown,
It’s almost slit to bits.
Who gives a damn for Mary’s lamb
When we can see her calf?

Read More..

Earth moving for garden landscaping

A topic that has vaguely troubled me for some years is the doubtful status in planning terms of engineering works carried out in a domestic garden in order to realise some of the more adventurous garden designs that are publicised on TV as well as in various magazines.

The General Permitted Development Order is of limited assistance here. Part 1, Class E permits the provision within the curtilage of (among other things) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool, required for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. “Building” would include anything that amounts to a structure, so various built features could be included in the design, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in Class E. For example, raised decking (or any balcony or other raised platform) is ruled out if its height from natural ground level is greater than 300 millimetres. Class F also permits hard surfacing, and this is not limited as to its area (in contrast with Class E). [There are, of course, exclusions, limitations and conditions in Class E, which I have discussed in a previous blog post, and do not propose to repeat here.]

When addressing a meeting of SWENFORCE (South West enforcement officers) last week, I speculated that one might also rely on Part 2 in respect of fences, gates, walls and other means of enclosure, but an earth bund (which could in principle come within Part 2 if it performs the function of enclosure) would not be permitted development if it was wider than is really necessary to perform that function or if it does not in reality act as a means of enclosure. In some circumstances, it might be possible to argue that raised banking in the garden does in fact constitute a structure, and is therefore permitted development under Part 1, Class E, but the position remains uncertain.

What is certainly not covered by the GPDO is more extensive excavation, and other earth-moving, taking the form of engineering operations rather than building operations. And yet I can think of quite a few garden landscaping schemes, even involving fairly extensive earth-moving, which have produced an entirely acceptable garden landscape, and which have no appreciable impact in planning terms. It seems to me that there is a lacuna in this respect in the GPDO, and there should perhaps be an additional Class within Part 1 of the Second Schedule to cater for works of this type.

The enforcement officers to whom I was lecturing had not encountered this problem in the course of their work, and this certainly accords with my own impression that most local planning authorities turn a blind eye to what in theory might be unauthorised development in the garden, presumably because no-one ever complains about it. The problem is that if a jealous or resentful neighbour does complain, there may be one or two enforcement officers who will see it as their mission to charge into action over it.

I am only aware of one appeal decision that is in any way relevant to this topic. Enforcement action was taken by Greenwich LBC against works carried out in the rear garden of a house as part of a televised makeover of the garden (instigated and broadcast by the BBC no less!). However, this action appears to have been directed at the structures that had been built, including two cube structures and an area of decking, plus a structure made out of old telegraph poles. In practice, it seems that it was only the height of these that was a problem, and the inspector accepted that reducing them below 3 metres in height would be acceptable. The question of any earth-moving or other landscaping does not seems to have arisen in this case.

In practice, even if the earth-works do amount to engineering operations, it is very unlikely in most cases that it would be expedient, under section 172, to serve an enforcement notice, and I would hope that common sense would prevail. I can’t recall off-hand if the NPPG repeats earlier ministerial advice to the effect that enforcement action should not be taken simply in order to ‘regularise’ the position where planning permission has not been obtained for development, if the development is doing no real harm in planning terms, but this principle should apply in any event.

The proper and permanent solution, however, would be an amendment of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to GPDO to permit engineering works for the purpose of landscaping a domestic garden. No doubt it would be necessary to set certain parameters, but this would be better than the continuance of the uncertain and unsatisfactory situation that obtains at present.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Use common sense in fog

IT’S NOVEMBER. The last of the spiders are drifting off on their silken threads, the air is cooling rapidly, and fog is creeping into the coves and straits overnight. Fog is dangerous for boaters who lack radar, as most of us do. Fog is especially frightening when you are caught out on a passage. What advice do I have?

Well, frankly, there isn’t much advice to give about getting caught in fog that isn’t covered by common sense. I mean, if you see a fog bank forming ahead, and you have a chance to turn back to a safe anchorage, do so. It’s the seamanlike action to take. Otherwise, you’re stuck with it.

Fog is treacherous. Go slowly and listen very carefully. If fog catches you out, try to get into shallow water and anchor there. Oftentimes that’s easier said than done, of course.

You should raise a radar reflector as high as you can, so other vessels with radar sets will see you. And you should be meticulous about making the right sound signal every two minutes or less. I have noticed that too many skippers are very lax about this. I have even traveled on a Washington State ferry that made no sound signals in thick fog, presumably relying on radar and AIS and clearance from Seattle Traffic Control, which can’t possibly tell the ferry if a small craft, invisible to radar, is in its path. There’s no warning for a small craft in the path of the ferry, either.

If you’re sailing, the correct signal is one long blast and two short blasts. That’s also the signal by a vessel not under command, or restricted by her ability to maneuver. The same signal comes from a vessel engaged in fishing, or towing or pushing another vessel.

If you’re under power, the fog signal (and the signal in any kind of restricted visibility, by the way) is one long blast every two minutes or less.

And one last tip — take along a horn that you can blow into. The fog horns that work off cans of compressed air don’t always work. I can vouch for that. I can also tell you that blowing the damn horn as loud as you can every two minutes is a pain in the you-know-what. You can’t go anywhere or do anything that lasts more than one minute, fifty-nine seconds. It puffs your cheeks out and raises your blood pressure. It makes you dizzy and produces black spots before your eyes. But it’s better than being run down at sea. So do it.

Today’s Thought

He that bringeth himself into needless dangers dieth the devil’s martyr.

— Thomas Fuller, Holy War

Tailpiece

“I’ve found out why production has slowed down since you got that second computer.”

“Good. What’s wrong?”

“The big computer’s shoving all the work on to the little computer.”

Read More..