Fer-A-Lite

I didn't say it was a problem. I said it was a concern. In other words; it's worth looking at in more detail.

I asked for the figures because I wanted to comment on the mechanics of whats going on within the composite. Engineering of composites is not a mystery.

I thought you actually might be interested in having some insight.

 

You have hit on one of the big problems I have with your claims. Above you say:

"Fer-A-Lite, per published tests has a modulus of elasticity matching aluminum, so then would you say that aluminum is an elastic medium?"

Now you say that the properties are heavily dependent on what type and how much resin is in the mix.

When I buy A36 steel, they don't give me a MSDS with qualifiers like that, nor do they give me a certification of structural properties with such qualifiers. Ditto for aluminium.

So when you make claims about structural properties:

What specifically are you referring to?

Is the modulus of elasticity of Fer-a-lite equal to aluminium by itself or only as part of a composite with steel? If the latter, how much steel of what type and size? If equal without any composites, over what range of strains? What is the elastic limit, the elongation and the ultimate failure point as per the values given for A36?

Who did the testing? The manufacturer or some approved testing lab?

What were the caveats on the testing? For example did the lab test a sample as provided by the manufacturer or did the lab take the instructions and make up a test sample from raw ingredients? Did they test a single sample or multiples? If the latter what was the distribution of results? I've done a lot of work with non-parametric statistics and a single value for any material is worthless in & of itself.

I was a scientist. The devil in claims is in the details and controlling for variables. Facts will change my mind but I want to know the metadata around the facts as well.

FWIW we used to make up sample strops from wire rope and send them off to be tested, some to failure. When you've got a lot of very expensive equipment on a wire and people working underneath it, it pays to be sure that the claimed properties are fact.

PDW

 

I posted one of the test results on this or one of the other various threads that are currently running discussing Fer-A-Lite. It was done by a professional lab.

The results of many of the tests are enclosed in the PDF on the Fer-A-Lite website. Most of the results were provided by professional labs, but some are clearly tests that Platt ran locally.

To really get a feel for Fer-A-Lite and its development one must get to know Platt Monforts background and achievements over the years.

It is a composite of Fer-A-Lite and Steel that was used in the test with the aluminum. It is posted on the site.

And of course, the PDF that is listed is the partially edited beginning of the next Revision of Platt's book. Since the time of publication of the 2nd ed. some things have changed.

Most importantly - Fer-A-Lite does not contain asbestos. The one component in the material that used to be on the list of asbestos or asbestos containing products was removed from the list in the early eighties when the official list was revised.

Oddly, that component is now a key component in asbestos free brake pads

 

Mike--Duly noted...
just for me personally, I probably wouldnt rely on the numbers as wou;ld others, niot because i dotn understand them--im just a
"test it in real life" kinda guy-

...but i do understand strength intuitively--such as why a tree flexes and bends and innate understanding that if that tree hits me ill break before it does etc...
with all due respect--i dont need numbers to tell me when a material is strong--i just gotta work with it a little and see...ive seen enough on the site to convince me--and also I had thought of doing something similar a few years ago using a Bondo type substance...when i saw this stuff..i just knew i had found my mising link..so to speak...
also- one of the reasons ferro fell into disrepute was the frameing methods- however-
one was developed that superceded others and was by far the strongest
way for making a framework for FC.

Something called "truss frame method" by Hartley and Brookes.It was developed in New Zealand to overcome any structural issues. I may not be an engineer but I do happen to know that the strength of a hull is in the shell..and this is true especially in FC.

the frames are simply used to form that shell...however,add this type of framing combined with the strength of the truss matrix combined with the strength of fer-a-lite and you will have undoubtedly the strongest way to build a boat..of course-this is totally my opinion...theres a good argument to say steel is stronger... but my point is the difference is probably negligable or unimportant. Hartkey himself says the only stronger vessel is a steel one and he says "steel when new" now imaigine how much stronger fer-a-lite would be using this method!?
I dont know how many on this thread have heard of it,..but the idea is instead of pipe frames...a truss system is used...trusses are made for frames covered in mesh...then plastered...this adds incredible strength. It has integral components--so the hull is perfectly rigid, and most importantly its completely monolithic...the holy grail of vessel construction...its really a revolution in fc construction and gives the frames the strength modulus(i dont have numbers but i believe they would compare relatively close) to steel. this also allows a solution for problematic attachment of deck beams, engine beds etc. this used in conjunction with fer-a-lite SHOULD be absolutely viable and undeniably strong and robust...which is why i would have no probs using it for my 45 ft'er...

 

Could you please supply the URL to this because I've missed it?

That PDF is 89 Mb! I'm on a satellite connection to the net, 'm not going to d/l a file that size to get the amount of information that can be fitted into 2 or 3 pages. Come on.

This might sound harsh but basically I don't give a tinker's cuss for Platt Montfort any more than I do for whoever came up with the spec for A36 steel or 6061 aluminium or 5085 ally or any number of other materials. All I care about is the materials' properties and the MSDS. Who did what when is of some historical interest but it does not matter UNLESS nobody else can reproduce their results/material. In which case it's a witches brew not a scientific formulation. Understand my point?

So there really is no information on what component does what? That's a big problem. I can claim that the steel reinforcing mesh was carrying the entire load and what can you say?

The PROPER way to do such a test is with 3 different materials mixes:

1. Fer-a-lite alone.

2. Fer-a-lite plus the specified steel reinforcing.

3. The steel reinforcing alone.

Anything not done like this is basically crap as you have not controlled your variables. It wouldn't even pass first year university experimental design.

So everything in there is subject to question anyway as stuff has changed?

Darr, with the best will in the world, this is NOT how materials testing or specifications are done. I don't know what your background is, maybe you've said, maybe not, but really either you have personally done or had done these tests or not. If so, it sounds like you haven't controlled for a range of important variables so absolutely no confidence can be placed on your claims.

I'm not saying that the material cannot or does not do what you claim, I'm saying that the onus is on you to provide the data and you have not done so. If you think that you have, then basically you do not understand scientific method and should go and pay someone to design a proper series of experiments for you, then conduct them and publish the results.

PDW

 

PDW--you make good points...I just gotta say - science and its methods are fallible...i get where your coming from--you want to see something tangible to go on as a guide..(if i m not mistaken)... but dont you think thats overcomplexifying things??...- at some point field trials have to be done...this is where i would start--asking owners and seeing the hulls in action etc...ask any scientist and they will say the best method is to prove it in the field...not the lab...to me its a lot more simple than running test after test...i am gleaning that people stay with tried and tested methds..because it feels secure...but thats a false sense of security, there are so many variables in a build..,and i know i dont have to say that to you...
off topic- i dont remember if I got the dimensions of that boat your plating up? is she a forty footer??

just two cents worth...

 

I just had a look at your 'published' data. It's not Published in the professional sense it's an in-house simple bending test. However your inference is wrong.

You are referring to a 'wireplank' bending test of a 10mm composite sample compared with the same width strip of 6mm alloy plate which showed similar characteristics in bending.

The extreme fibres from the nuetral axis are 3 and 5 mm accordingly so the alloy is actually around (5/3)^2 times stiffer or around 3 times stiffer.

So none of the figures are actually very impressive.


It's about same strength as standard ferro cement but weaker in compression to std FC.
It's 1/3 the stiffness of alloy
1/6 the ultimate strength of the lowest grade of steel
It has poor shear strength and holes easily in collision ( as does ferro)
It uses a material that breaks down eventually due to hydrolysis (almost inevitable)
It's one plus was that as a replacement for modified Portland mortar it's lighter. Easier to repair and allows staggered mortaring. Not much to recommend it on the face of it.

 

Mike,

I believe the inference that Platt was making was based on a weight to weight analysis.

You are correct it is for a composite of Fer-A-Lite and wire plank, however since a Fer-A-Lite hull is a composite, referencing it as a comparison of Fer-A-Lite to aluminum should not be misleading.

And I assure you that where as I can punch a hole relatively easily through a FC hull, it is not the case with Fer-A-Lite.

Simply looking at the difference in repairing makes that obvious, whereas on a FC hull we take a hammer and a deadweight and shatter the mortar and watch it fall out, you can beat on the Fer-A-Lite hull all day and you may make a few small cracks, but it does not fall out. You must use some type of air hammer with a pin tip and blast it out of the matrix.

I know of several hulls that at over 3 decades do not show the effects of hydrolysis of which you speak. In fact I know of none, unless of course the mystery boat suffers from that as well.

Keeping in mind that the Fer-A-Lite, just like portland mortar is there to keep the water out the items you state do not hold a lot of water

It is a composite construction. That means you take the various parts and come up with a result that hopefully exceeds just the sum of the parts.

Fiberglass cloth is not exactly the strongest material in all axis in its unsaturated state, add resin and you suddenly have something to work with.

 

Scientist aren't always inventors, Inventors aren't always Scientist!! Where is it written that every product ever invented was required to be tested from one end of the spectrum to the other. A Short Story... An inventor has invented a widget, he brings it to a group to evluate. He discribes his invention, what is made of, how it's assembled and how it works. The group studies the invention. He has answered all questions. The group has seen the assembly, the material used and how it actually works. Most products are given the go ahead by marketing individuals. There were no scientist in the group, they were not needed as the product has performed as advertized. Most inventions are brought forward to make money! I am acutely aware of this process as some of my inventions are still around,some aren't. Too my times good ideas are lost by some individuals getting and giving negative information. Most scientist I have known are forward looking trying to improve these ideas. But I do believe we are all intitled to our opinions. Opinions are very important, I learn so much when I hear opposing opinion.
But most important ...IS TO LISTEN!

 

Meshed truss frame was very common nothing special and it became standard practice early in FC development.

Ferro cement fell into disrepute for two reasons one is becasue it has such a poor panel shear strength and they sink too easily. They should have WT bulkheads and get home floatation from any one holed compartment IMO.

The other was build quality assurance and post build assessment problems in a fleet of boats who's build quality ranged from appalling to excellent.

 

My comments in red

 

Pdwiley,

You are correct sir if in fact I was going after a commercial or government builder, my target audience is the current owners of ferro boats be it FC or Fer-A-Lite as well as those interested in sheathing existing hulls.

The costs associated with the tests you are asking for would be a waste of money based on my targeted goals.

If someone uses common sense and decides to build a boat out of Fer-A-Lite because of the documented life spans from current and former owners that is great as well.


You do not see any solicitation to sell on any threads from me, however I will come up and start getting involved when individuals make unfounded claims without benefit of first hand experience with the material.

As for the mystery Adams 50 that keeps being discussed, all I have asked for is some documented evidence on it. I am inclined to believe that it does in fact have some issues, however I am also pretty sure based on the various tidbits that it is a result of poor construction and a failure to follow the specified methods.

And out of all the vessels that I have solicited info on, I have received no reports of issues with the hulls, in fact most owners can't speak highly enough of them.

Just like a sheet of aluminum, it may meet specs, but the seam may still fail due to the weld.

 

Ah Mike,

Most importantly during my nuclear training I was taught to look at the big picture and not get lost in the details.

 

When you want to sell a product into a country with strong consumer protection laws. In Australia if you make a claim about a product, you had BETTER have the data to support that claim or you are history the first time anyone challenges you, especially if there's a product failure. We have strong laws against false or misleading advertising.

Yeah, I've seen the claims for products that bolt to cars and increase mileage too. Trust me they work, never mind about the science.

You're entitled to your OPINION. You're not entitled to your own set of facts. So many people can't seem to grasp the difference.

You, sir, are not a scientist and you demonstrate no grasp of scientific method, so please stop making ridiculous claims.

PDW

 

So you'd be happy with a length of pipe made out of 304 when the spec called for Inconel then?

PDW