16' Keel boat-high performance

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by Doug Lord, May 27, 2005.

  1. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Doug, Retro dude here.

    I read every word you post, I check every link. I ask for fact, science or data to support the claims made. What I get in return is hype and personal attacks.

    This thread is a prime example. A sit down keelboat that would be exciting to sail for people of differing abilities. That is a WONDERFUL idea, noble even. Then somehow it morphed into another physics defying flight of fancy.

    I'll try my best not to post in your threads in future.

    Respectfully,

    Randy Hough
     
  2. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Physics defying?

    CT, when I have time I'll check into your figures. I'm relatively sure of mine-did you count the RM from the canted ballast keel? You may have missed that small detail. But I appreciate you taking the time to post those figures. Pardon me but through past experience with some of your figures I'm not at all confident of their accuracy-BUT: I do appreciate the effort.
    The overiding FACT is that in the disabled configuration the boat MUST be self righting with or without crew assistance in pivoting the wing. So if in testing we find that it is too slow to right it will be fixed by whatever means are necessary. I'd much rather start off with too much SA then not enough but the rig is simlar to the 16' aeroskiff rig(at this point with the main done like the 14(see Peoplesfoiler thread)-that is: camber induced sock luff except on a stayed mast.That means the CE is much lower than any rig you mentioned.(see: www.monofoiler.com I haven't checked this site-it is with the same hoster as microsail.com so there may be problems that will soon be corrected.)
    ====================
    Thanks, Randy
     
  3. frosh
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 621
    Likes: 14, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 44
    Location: AUSTRALIA

    frosh Senior Member

    Doug, I have looked carefully over the stats posted by CT 249 re various high performance craft and they seem about right. It isn't going to help your credibility to maintain the line the one of your critics is constantly getting his facts wrong as this is a public forum and most of us are well informed to make up our minds as to who is right and who is suffering from paranoia. His conclusion is also very sound that your SDB is grossly overcanvassed and is a major accident just waiting to happen. (The first time the wind exceeds 10 knots). What is the obsession with pure speed about anyway? I like R Hough's posting that the original topic of the thread was wonderful and agree entirely. Unfortunately it has degenerated into a feud between you and several others, why might you ask. I had a dream a few nights ago that a few years had slipped by and then I went to the beach. I looked up and there were people flying, some at several hundred feet altitude on kitesurfers with more advanced wings than I had ever seen before. They werent jumping, but taking off from the water, gaining altitude and staying aloft.

    Well you are having such a flight of fantasy but what is critical is that I admit it was only a pleasant dream, but you make up numbers to support your unbelievable claims and claim that innovative work by some designers lend support to your concept. Are you surprised that your claims are being challenged by quite well informed and experienced people. It takes a bigger person than you have been so far to admit that maybe what you have claimed is too ambitious and probably not possible.

    Do you agree that sailors selected to represent their country at the Olympic Games are in the main highly skilled and very talented. I will assume that you do so, why do they bother with such "pathetic" craft as Star Keelboats, 470's, Finn dinghys, Lasers, Mistral One Designs. By the way I don't really believe that they are "pathetic", just fairly slow by modern standards, however this does not really detract from their real positive qualities.

    By the way what are you racing credentials in yachting? Have you even been involved in any serious racing class and understood the real beauty of this sport? If it is only speed that is important get yourself a 12 inch wide speed board and sail in the trench in France in 40 knots of wind.
     
  4. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    Lorsail, you may be right, not all of my figures may be 100% perfect. I will be interested to see your preferred figures. I made an allowance for the keel being canted but the keel is fairly light.

    Furthermore, the canting keel seems to make re-righting even more of an issue since in fast boats, getting backwinded is perhaps THE major problem - as Bethwaite discusses in his piece on the HSP. With lots of weight to weather in the SDB as well as a canting keel, life would seem rather perilous. Of course once the beam is deeply immersed (rather than skipping over the water at speed) it would probably tend to slew the boat into an involuntary tack after backwinding, if Canoe experience is a guide. So you end up say getting backwinded from starboard tack, and end up rolling to starboard, with the keel cranked to starboard, the beam to starboard, and then slewing right onto port tack.

    I don't know where you sail, but here in the little-known place called Sydney Harbour we often get that sort of vicious backwinding stuff.....hence the reason a sailor as brilliant as Rohan wrote that he didn't think he would sail a foiler there again after his experience in the Brass Monkey. That was an extreme regatta for that part of the harbour, but not for other areas (ie getting in an out of the Squaddy, many places in the UK, the upper part of Sydney harbour where the 12s play, Middle Harbour where Frank BEthwaite found that his HSPs were backwinded regularly, etc).

    We may both have figures from good sources that may both be incorrect. The 18 Foot Skiff association's figures don't really coincide with that of one of the greatest of the 18 builder/designers, for example. Others are estimated displacements as 16 Foot Skiffs for example don't weigh anything but the hull. There are different figures for 49ers....those from "official" sites, those from the ISAF trials (when the boat may have been slightly wet and wind may have been a factor), etc etc. The 505 figure came from the old Baader book and made no allowance for the much LIGHTER weight of modern Five-Oh rigs and gear. I am not sure of the current wind width of the 49er now equalisation has been dropped.

    Some are definitely accurate within fairly close limits; ie I have had my own boats of that type officially weighed.

    However, I think that my figures, based on real boats that have been built and sailed, are likely to be more accurate than your estimated figures of a boat that has not been built, not completely designed, and which is likely to pose novel problems in construction that will increase the problem of estimating dimensions.

    As an International Canoe sailor, I have no problems with the SDB idea. I actually posted the same concept as a flight of fancy on SA some time ago. My idea was for a giant Canoe, a ply twilight racer. However, it would be a very hard boat to sail and as experience in 18s indicates quite clearly, you cannot just increase RM and SA without respecting the handling issues involved.

    By the way, vertically-pivoting wings/SDBs introduce a major problem. The early wings on 18s pivoted so that the lee wing was clear of the water. The problem was that things that go up also go down, and sometimes they go down (when two crew run and jump onto them throuogh a tack or gybe) when the third crewman has accidentally put a limb or digit underneath them.

    I think Big Kite lost a thumb that way, and I think there were other issues. That's one major reason even the 18 Foot Skiffs decided pivoting rigs were too dangerous. Therefore a similar idea may not be perfect for a mass-market boat.
     
  5. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Sail Carrying Power

    Frosh,it would behoove you to do your own research rather than relying on anonomous internet posters such as CT249. While I do appreciate the effort he apparently went to to get the info about other boats- if he got them as wrong as he got my boat then I'm afraid that data is not much use.
    Your conclusion that my boat is grossly overpowered is 100% wrong and apparently based on an erroneous calculation done by CT 249.
    When sailing upwind with 1lb. per sq.ft(about 15-17 knot breeze ) of wind pressure on the 255 sq. ft. of sail area the RM(Righting Moment) of the 18' SDB/Trapwing™ is 2602 ft. lb.'s broken down as follows with the boat at a 15° angle of heel:
    1) 75 lb.'s in canting /daggerboard/keel(15 + 20°-see description in previous post)
    ----------------------------------187 ft. lb.'s
    -------------------------
    2) 250lb. crew at .5'--------------125 ft. lb.'s
    ------------------------
    3) hull @ .5'-----------------------90 ft. lb.'s
    ------------------------
    4)220lb. ballast in wing@ 10'-----2200 ft. lb.'s
    TOTAL RIGHTING MOMENT------------2602 ft. lb.s
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    TOTAL HEELING MOMENT-------------2550 ft. lb.s
    Because the rig is square top main and jib it has automatic gust response and can be depowered and sailed in much greater wind than that quoted above.
    ===============================================
    As you can see you were both seriously wrong.
    However, since you seem to want me to "admit" the error of my ways I guess I'm forced to tell you that the SCP/Total Weight I quoted earlier in a previous post was wrong: instead of 30% it appears to be 33% . If you don't understand what SCP/TOTAL WEIGHT means read the previous post with the specs of the two boats. Then check what the same figure is for a Moth and remember Bethwaite said that boats with a ratio of 30% or above can plane upwind. Note post from Tom Speer earlier on the requirements for foil assist working and check my response. And please, when making pronouncements about a design do your own math-and make sure to understand all the factors involved before arriving at a conclusion.
    =============================================
    You asked about speed: to me it's very simple-- speed is it's own reward. To have a self righting "sit-down" boat as powered up as this one could provide many people who don't like to hike or who can't hike the thrill of a lifetime-there is nothing remotely close on the market now.
    ===============================================
    You asked about my "credentials": 46 years of racing, sailing, designing and bulding small sailboats. Several US Patents - 3 out of 4 sailing related.
     
  6. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Couldn't do it, sorry

    Sorry Doug, I tried not to reply I honestly did.

    I had to do my own math as you suggested.

    Main/Jib Combos sail upwind in the CL 1.6 - 2.0 range. (Bethwaite, US Sailing et al)

    16knots = 27FPS

    Force = 1.6CL x 255 area x .0012 density x 27^2 = 356.9 pounds not 255

    That makes the heeling force on a 10 foot arm 3569 foot pounds not 2550.

    At 1.6CL you have 2550 ft lbs of heel at about 13 knots apparent. Depending on boat speed (6 knots?) That would put true wind speed in the 9 knot range to fully power the boat (heel moment = righting moment).

    Respectfully,

    Randy Hough
     
  7. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    Ok Doug, it seems to me that you now have 60.8% of the RM of a 16 Foot Skiff. The 16 now often have a Bethwaite-designed rig, with fathead main. We all know Bethwaite designs a good skiff rig and he has vastly more experience in this area than you do. Of course 16s have a mainsheet hand to play the main with both hands, and a forward hand to play the jib, so their gust response is excellent.

    Surely it's therefore unreasonable to simply assume that your rig has a better gust response (singlehanded) than the Bethwaite rig - particularly when you say we must listen to Julian.

    So we are left with the situation that even with your higher RM, you are trying to handle a larger rig with 60.8% of the RM. However you play the pounds-per-ft2 of sail, you are still trying to handle a larger rig with much less righting moment. Please explain how this could be done.

    Secondly, the 16 Foot Skiff moves to small rig in about 10 knots.....they when they are therefore going upwind in 18 knots (with almost twice your RM) they are reduced to a rig about 68% as big AND specifically designed for heavy air. All skiffies know that their heavy-air rigs are much better in a breeze than a rig that has to handle light airs too. Ask the R Class guys, their boats are extremely similar to a 12 Foot Skiff with a #3 rig in, but the 12 is much faster and easier to handle in a breeze because the rig is designed for it.

    So all you're saying is that your design, with 60.8% of the RM of a 16, can go upwind with a much, much bigger rig than Julian puts on the 16s AND your boat will still keep going in conditions the big-rig 16s get blasted off the water. There's a reason they have small rigs for heavy air - it's because even 4276 lb of RM won't hold up a 237ft2 rig in a breeze, even with 2 guys just to handle the sheets and when it handles gusts like the Bethwaite rig. Don't matter what figures you put in when those figures don't agree with reality, as expressed in the most popular Aussie Skiff of all (and in many other classes....for example the discrepancy between your RM and the F16s RM).

    This doesn't seem to sit well with your belief that 'cause Julian likes ballasted tris, we must all follow him.

    I use the 16 because its dimensions are fairly similar.


    By the way my calcs are done as Andy Dovell and others do them, making no account of hull buoyancy but merely crew weight from CL....when heeled the 16 would be more stable. Not many people sail fast boats heeled at 15 degrees anyway.

    Also how wide is the sliding beam of your SDB? I was assuming (see my specific note to this effect) that you didn't extend it the whole 10' as it has to have some "bury" (ie some part of it has to be on the hull) like that of a Canoe. That explains why my RM for the SDB is lower than yours.
     
  8. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Sdb

    Ct249, I've used a rule of thumb for 40+ years and numerous small boats: match the SA to the RM based on 1 lb. per sq. ft. pressure acting at the CE. What this has resulted in is boats well matched to their righting moment and able to sail well upwind in around a 15-17knot breeze without depowering or reefing-with depowering AND reefing available as necessary above that. Many other boats have been designed(apparently) using something like this rule of thumb. Among them the Windmill and Viper 640. The Viper has almost exactly the same RM as does my boat upwind with a bit higher heeling moment(using 1lb. per sq. ft.) due to the higher rig. One of the advantages of the 18 SDB is that the CE of the rig is very low compared almost any boat in it's size range. The 18 SDB rig is completely different than the Viper rig providing automatic gust response and easy depowering due to the nature of the sails' planform(more rectangular than triangular). Tests with models and on my 16 foot foiler show this type of rig to hold a lot of promise.
    -------------------
    Viper 640-19' waterline-21' LOA-/ 252 sq.ft. SA upwind/ estimated maximum righting moment w/ three 160lb. crew including CB shift and 4.5' ballasted keel:2619 ft. lb.s; estimated HM using 1 lb. per sq. ft. rule of thumb with 1' higher CE than the 18 SDB: 2805 ft.lbs
    ==========================
    I'm satisfied that the boat is likely to be fine with the SA and RM as described above. However, it is an experimental design; changes will be made as necessary in both the disabled and ablebodied versions. As I said earlier I will be building a large nearly scale rc version to further refine the concept before doing the final design. The focus on a very high performance "sit in" design won't ever change-some details may but right now it's looking pretty good to me.
    --------------------
    Viper 640
    Address:http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/viper640.htm Changed:4:09 PM on Monday, March 13, 2006
    ---------------
    New Viper
    V6 Sportsboat
    Address:http://www.race1.co.uk/yachtspages/v6pages/v6photospages/v6denmark1.html Changed:7:36 AM on Friday, August 13, 2004
     
  9. frosh
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 621
    Likes: 14, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 44
    Location: AUSTRALIA

    frosh Senior Member

    Doug, lets assume for the sake of argument right now that your data relating to RM , Heeling Moment and SCP/weight are about right. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. So the larger SDB will have potential Sail Carrying Power and Power to Weight similar or better than a I14 so should plane to windward and probably foil as well, (even if this is off the wind). Is this essentially what you have recently claimed?
    Have you noticed that large canting keelers also have a very deep fore-fin (which is unballasted) as well? Your SDB will certainly need this to go upwind as we all know that there is very little LR in the canting keel when deployed. (Also have you calculated the form drag of the ballasted bulb)? Is this fore-fin the fin that is also fitted with a large lifting foil. Won't this lifting foil be at least double the area of the Fastacraft Moth foil? Have you or can you do an accurate calculation of the massive skin drag of all the surfaces that will necessarily be immersed, even before planing is acheived, let alone foiling?

    The other issue is what sort of super hero would be capable of sailing this technological masterpiece (singlehanded of course). We have mainsheet, rudder control, jib sheet at least part of the time, asymmetric kite, including launching, retreiving and sheet pressure, and it needs constant playing so no chance of cleating it off.

    In addition canting keel control, even if electric, probable adjustment of lifting foil (up-down? flap trim?), adjustment of T-foil rudder. Lateral movement of "trapwing", and at full travel during tacks and gybes!

    Sail controls such vang, Cunningham, mainsail foot control just to name 3 that would be essential.

    I have not sailed a hydrofoiled Moth so I will suggest the following without the benefit of first-hand experience. Maybe we can get an expert opinion from another forum member on this one. I expect that once foiling the skipper cannot just hike out on the wing and remain static in one position for any length of time. How will the SDB skipper once foiling, and I assume that you propose centreline foils only as you have correctly stated that these are much quicker than a tri-foil arrangement, fine tune the RM force? Sitting inside the hull and having the keel fully canted means that the only means left is to constantly adjust the lateral position of the ballasted "trapwing". Is this intended to be manual or electric?

    If all this is more or less correct please name the super hero as I would love to meet him, and promptly nominate him or her as sailor of the century!

    One last thought; this is considerably more tasks than is faced by the 3 person crew of a 16 skiff and having raced on one, know that in a medium breeze everyone has their hands full. If as I suspect your SDB will need 3 expert sailors to control it, it will really foul-up every one of your previous calculations.
    Was the original thread something about a sit in keel boat suitable for a single sailor of widely differing abilities?
     
  10. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    SDB/ workload/ foils

    Frosh,any disabled person that steps on to any sailboat from the 2.4 meter to the Martin 16 to the UD18(Lead Assited Skiff) to the Sonar is already a superhero for having the guts and courage to sail in the first place.
    As I visualize it, this boat will be available in disabled and ablebodied versions; the difference between the two versions would be what has to be servo controlled and what doesn't. If you explore the world of disabled sailing as it exists now you'll find excellent boats like the Martin 16 that are offered with servo controlled everything for the most seriously handicaped down to no servos at all for able bodied sailors. The Martin 16 is a good example of workload management being possible on a "sit down" 16 footer with asymetrical spinnaker ,main and jib-and specifically targeted for ablebodied and/or disabled sailors. My boat ,as you point out, has even more to control but I believe it can be done with good design. For instance, Bram Dally(sp?) designer of the Swift Solo (which for those not familiar is a single handed skiff with main, jib, and large asymetric controlled by a crew on trapeze) has come up with an ingenious single sheet system for controlling main and jib at the same time. I've used a version of that on my 16' foiler and it works nicely.Thinking like that will be applied to simplifying the systems on the SDB Trapwing as well.
    =============================================
    Lateral resistance/ foil assist-- First, you might want to read the following discussion on "foil assist" with a specific example related to this boat. This is the discussion I had remembered was in this thread-but I was wrong.Here it is:
    Foil Assist: small or large monohulls - Boat Design Forums
    Address:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9732&highlight=Foil Assist
    I don't know how familiar you are with Andy Dovells work on wings for canting keels but he has designed and built several race winning canting keel designs using fixed wings for the extra lateral resistance required when the keel is canted -starting with Atomic(I think). I talked to him about them and he's convinced that they not only work well upwind with the keel canted but are not a liability downwind. That brings us back to the 18: the canting keel/daggerboard only cants relative to the boat 20° but with heel upwind it's effective cant can be around 35°. That means that you are correct that the boat would need some additional lateral resistance upwind in a breeze. Fortunately, that fits in with my plans to try foil assist since the same foil that is providing some extra lateral resistance upwind can have it's angle of incidence(relative to the boat) changed instantly by throwing a lever or similar mechanical or electro mechanical device that simply moves the whole board/ballast/foil combination instead of requiring a flap or all moving foil.Only a very small movement would be required. The same single device would lock the board in the vertical position at the same time while disconnecting it from the Trapwing.Remember ,this is "foil assist" which does not require an altitude control system. Sounds more complicated than it is-in fact it is quite simple and robust. So the same foil that provides extra lateral resistance upwind would provide "foil assist" lift as described in the other thread referenced above.And you only have one "lever" to pull(or button to push) when you round the windward mark and leeward mark). Another possible solution that will be looked at on the model is using the kFOIL in a similar way which would allow for the retracting of the main foil in light air; my gut feeling is that that is one step too far on this particular boat-but I will experiment with it.
    ======================
    Trapwing Control- there are loads of possibilities here. It is essential that the wing be able to move quickly-at least as fast as a crew can move. But with new technology that is now available it may be possible to very simply and at relatively low cost automate the wing movement so that it is responsive and changes possition from tack to tack ,gybe to gybe maintaining a preprogramed angle of heel upwind and downwind thruout most of the wind range. Originaly, for able bodied crew I had considered the use of a bicycle arrangement so that the leg's would be used to control wing movement but I feel now that -at least on the 18- the wing should be powered electically for both versions-though the whole thing is still wide open. In "normal" sailing angles of heel the power required to move the whole wing will be quite low-but in dicey conditions loads could get high. This end of the design needs more development to come up with the ideal system. On smaller SDB versions from 10' thru ,probably, 16' I'd bet the crew could easily handle the wing with no electrical assistance. I'm not afraid of an electical system since relability can be so high these days. The recent idea about the fully automated version is really interesting ,especially for boats bigger than the 18; the weight of such a system would be negligible and the battery for any powered version could be part of the movable ballast negating any weight penalty there.
    ---------------------------
    So, yes this is a technical boat but one with enormous potential. Versions using the concept are possible from 10' on up but the 18 is the one I personally am most interested in building-if only for myself.
     
  11. frosh
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 621
    Likes: 14, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 44
    Location: AUSTRALIA

    frosh Senior Member

    Doug, again assuming that your too good to be true SDB ("when it is sounds too good to be true, it usually is!"), could be developed to allow one person to control at least 8 functions simultaneously, it would probably need to be fully electronic and the operator would sit at a console. $1,000,000 would not be unreasonable to develop all the systems allowing for testing and continuing modification.
    The final cost of an 18 footer incorporating everything will make the price of a 49er look like the bargain of the century, which it is not!
    You are still having flights of fantasy, are you not?
     
  12. usa2
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 538
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: Maine

    usa2 Senior Member

    "It is essential that the wing be able to move quickly-at least as fast as a crew can move."

    exactly, and that is why this will not work. The wing probably wont move as fast as a normal crew would, and even if it does, it wont have the instinctive, instantaneous reaction that a person has. If you want to make a boat to be high performance, go for it. However, dont try to market it as a boat for "everybody", including disabled sailors. A boat with this many systems to control could possibly be too complicated for a normal sailor, let alone a disabled one.
     
  13. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    SDB /trapwing movement

    2, You say: "...it won't have the instinctive instantaneous reaction that a person has." When you say "it" I can only assume you must be refering to the "automatic" preprogrammed version that I mentioned as probably being possible. I can guarantee you that that particular iteration is a long way off-and would only be used if it DID react at least as quickly as the crew would. On the 18 disabled version and maybe on both the weight will be moved electricaly and controlled directly by the crew-it will definitely be as fast as a crew and likely a bit faster. The real problem is not moving the weight fast it is controlling it when something goes wrong; I believe I have that solved but only testing will prove it one way or another. The electrically powered version will be required-more than likely-on this size and up to slide the ballast effectively but on smaller versions it can be done by the crew.
    I forget which one but one of the Herreshoffs had an "SDB" -sliding deck ballast boat-that I've been told was one of his favorites-so the concept can definitely be made to work. I've proven that it can work on models and posted a picture of one of them earlier; getting a modern fullsize version to work will definitely take some testing but that's the main fun of developing something new.
     
  14. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    "I forget which one but one of the Herreshoffs had an "SDB" -sliding deck ballast boat-that I've been told was one of his favorites-so the concept can definitely be made to work."

    I assume you mean the boat of one of LF's uncles....forgotten which one. He mentioned it in discussions after a talk with WP Stephens (the canoe and rater designer).

    However, the boat was a sandbagger-style boat in around the 1840s, I think, with metal ballast running on athwartships tracks. A similar boat (Charm) was exported to Australia.

    It seems that these were beamy, heavy displacement boats in which the sliding ballast was merely an aid to stability; they would certainly have been quite stable even with the ballast shifted to leeward.
     

  15. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Herreshoff

    249, if I remember correctly I first heard that story from a guy responding to the "On Deck Sliding Ballast" thread on SA I started sometime last year-way before the little Dutch boys did their thing. Unfortunately, the new SA software does not accept webtv so I can't search the archives but I'm fairly sure it's there. I don't remember the details well enough to argue with you about it-but you might want to check.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.