G'day,

The plan is to only pop the beams when you are at your marina berth.
Even in a wake, the worst that will happen is the inboard side of the
hull will bounce on the beam.  If someone is standing on the inboard
edge, it would need a pretty big wake to bounce it.  On most boats,
standing on the beams will pop them, on the bigger ones they may need
some encouragement, but this is pretty easy.  The good thing about
pulling them out and up is the tramp gets tightened/loosened easily.

The lack of parallel should not be a problem.  Pull one end in, then
the other is probably the easiest way to proceed.  The track is pretty
simple as it is a single car and alignment is not critical, so little
or nothing can jam.  (Famous last words).

More than happy to look at other options, but am not sure what you are
describing.  Could you draw it please.  Short beams attached to the ww
hull are good, but there has to be a bulkhead across the bridgedeck
and hull at this point, so it needs to be clear of the bunks.  Cutting
and reinforcing is generally not a big deal, but try to avoid point
loads.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> Hi,
> There are a couple things that bother me about this rev. First, the idea of
> having to pop the crossbeams down and out of the u-channel seems like it
> would require really flat water. I don't want to do this out at sea, but
> going into a marina in some chop, or just having a couple inconsiderate
> motorboat kicking up wake seems like it could make that mark difficult.
> Another issue is that once one beam is disconnected, there is nothing
> holding the hulls parallel. I guess you just have to rig a line to hold onto
> the lw hull "stern" but it makes me feel insecure.
> Finally, having the track underneath the deck and not visible during the
> collapsing process also worries me. How will you know what is wrong if the
> car just stops moving? It seems like it would be better if the mechanism
> were visible.
> I have a bit of a variant on this that addresses some of these issues, but
> does have a couple issues of its own. First, I am going to assume that the
> open part of the proa (i.e. where the tramps are) is at least twice as long
> as it is wide. If so, both the beams can fold up against the lw hull without
> hitting each other. That probably won't be true for many of the proa
> designs, but the one I am working with has a deck that is 12x25', and I want
> another 12' of tramp beam, so I only have 12' of crossbeam between the lw
> hull and the deck. Given that, here is my idea:
> Hinge the crossbeams at the lw hull, just as in your diagram. Then you "cut"
> the crossbeams right where they join the deck. The crossbeam under the
> tramps join the crossbeam under the deck with an inner piece that slides in
> and out, just like a latch on a door. (I am thinking something like this)
> The folding end of the crossbeam then runs down a track on the lw side of
> the deck to collapse. Since the crossbeams are <= 50% of the deck length,
> they just about meet in the middle of the deck when the boat is collapsed.
> So, in order to fold the boat, you retract the "bolt" into the beam, then
> slide it along the track on the edge of the deck. That way everything is
> visible the whole time.
> My main concern with this is what cutting the beams in half and then joining
> with the "bolt" will do to the strength, and what to do about the increased
> play in the beams.
> The other complication is if you want longer beams. I think you can do that
> by canting the hinges just a few degrees, so that they dont' hit in the
> middle.
> Anyway, is this clear? doable? I am not sure about drawing it, but I can try
> if it would help.
> - Gardner
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, captian_rapscallion
> <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>>
>> Rob,
>> I like this version more than rev 1. How will this work for getting in
>> and out of a monohull marina slip?
>>
>> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > G'day,
>> >
>> > Even simpler, thanks Jim for the underdeck suggestion.
>> >
>> > Just realised the ww hull will heel when folded. Not a problem for
>> > traillering, but maybe for sleeping. I will check it out in the
>> > morning.
>> >
>> > The beams and hinges are both straight and level, the tramp is
>> > tightened when the second beam is block and tackled into place. Pin
>> > the beams in the brackets in case you are caught aback. There is a
>> > small overlap between the beams when folded, this should come out with
>> > a geometry change, otherwise one or both will have to be angled, the
>> > same as before.
>> >
>> > Again, the track and car can be large and sloppy, there is no weight
>> > on them. Suspect a rope running fore and aft through a hole in the
>> > beam would do the job if necessary. May have to be a bit careful in
>> > big waves, but as long as someone is sitting in the cockpit, it is
>> > unlikely to capsize.
>> >
>> > Not able to change the boat's beam, but It will not be feasible (or
>> > race legal) to reduce/extend the beam while the
>> > boat is sailing, so better to make a second set of beams and tramp for
>> > light air.
>> >
>> > Bearings will be UHMPWE, or pvc drainpipe. Either way, there will be
>> > a stiffener inside them to keep them round. The tow from the beams
>> > will wrap around them 25mm from the top and bottom, then the tow to
>> > attached them to the hull will wrap around above and below that. The
>> > ends will have flanges to stop them sliding out. Could remove a lot
>> > of the bearing material as only the ends are doing anything. They are
>> > the same as the mast bearings so should not be a problem with grit
>> > etc. Friction wil be low as there is not much load on them. Moving
>> > the beams should be pretty easy for 90% of the way as well. A block
>> > and tackle or winch for the last 10% (of one of them) will finish the
>> > job.
>> >
>> > The difference between these beams and those on Elementarry or any other
>> > slider is that these have to be removed through the windward hull, as
>> > well as telescope. This make for a lot of tapers, some of which are
>> > the wrong direction, hence 2 sets of pins.
>> >
>> > This is a pretty typical Rob rant when I have thought of something
>> > new, but not yet tested it. Probably sounds a lot like my enthusiasm
>> > for the removable beams for traillering. ;-)
>> >
>> > The rudders on both systems are mounted on struts attached to the
>> > bulkhead where the deck is cut away. They are not affected by the
>> > beam set up.
>> >
>> > I offered cat2fold $100 per boat, have not heard back
>> > yet. Happy to use his system as well, but it involves some mucking
>> > about with the lee hull shape.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > ROb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, captian_rapscallion
>> > <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It's an interesting idea. I like the potential simplicity a slider
>> > > might offer when getting the boat ready to launch and retrieve. The
>> > > slider offers the potential beam adjustment in light air, I really
>> > > like that too.
>> > >
>> > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> G'Day,
>> > >>
>> > >> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>> > >>
>> > >> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
>> > >> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
>> > >> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
>> > >> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
>> > >> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
>> > >> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
>> > >> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler
>> piece
>> > >> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
>> > >> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>> > >>
>> > >> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
>> > >> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
>> > >> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
>> > >> to happen.
>> > >>
>> > >> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
>> > >> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
>> > >> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
>> > >> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
>> > >> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
>> > >> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>> > >>
>> > >> Look forward to your comments.
>> > >>
>> > >> regards,
>> > >>
>> > >> Rob
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

http://www.garryhoyt.com/id32.html

-For the cruisers with a wider bridgedeck in proportion to their
lengths, connecting at the edge of the bridge deck makes sense to me.
I would consider a track sitting on the edge of the bridge deck. It
could be placed on the outside of a pod to get enough support. -- In
harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> There are a couple things that bother me about this rev. First, the
idea of
> having to pop the crossbeams down and out of the u-channel seems like it
> would require really flat water. I don't want to do this out at sea, but
> going into a marina in some chop, or just having a couple inconsiderate
> motorboat kicking up wake seems like it could make that mark difficult.
>
> Another issue is that once one beam is disconnected, there is nothing
> holding the hulls parallel. I guess you just have to rig a line to
hold onto
> the lw hull "stern" but it makes me feel insecure.
>
> Finally, having the track underneath the deck and not visible during the
> collapsing process also worries me. How will you know what is wrong
if the
> car just stops moving? It seems like it would be better if the mechanism
> were visible.
>
> I have a bit of a variant on this that addresses some of these
issues, but
> does have a couple issues of its own. First, I am going to assume
that the
> open part of the proa (i.e. where the tramps are) is at least twice
as long
> as it is wide. If so, both the beams can fold up against the lw hull
without
> hitting each other. That probably won't be true for many of the proa
> designs, but the one I am working with has a deck that is 12x25',
and I want
> another 12' of tramp beam, so I only have 12' of crossbeam between
the lw
> hull and the deck. Given that, here is my idea:
>
> Hinge the crossbeams at the lw hull, just as in your diagram. Then
you "cut"
> the crossbeams right where they join the deck. The crossbeam under the
> tramps join the crossbeam under the deck with an inner piece that
slides in
> and out, just like a latch on a door. (I am thinking something like
>
this<http://www.sourcingmap.com/stainless-steel-door-barrel-bolt-latch-with-padl\
ock-clasp-p-19103.html>)
> The folding end of the crossbeam then runs down a track on the lw
side of
> the deck to collapse. Since the crossbeams are <= 50% of the deck
length,
> they just about meet in the middle of the deck when the boat is
collapsed.
>
> So, in order to fold the boat, you retract the "bolt" into the beam,
then
> slide it along the track on the edge of the deck. That way everything is
> visible the whole time.
>
> My main concern with this is what cutting the beams in half and then
joining
> with the "bolt" will do to the strength, and what to do about the
increased
> play in the beams.
>
> The other complication is if you want longer beams. I think you can
do that
> by canting the hinges just a few degrees, so that they dont' hit in the
> middle.
>
> Anyway, is this clear? doable? I am not sure about drawing it, but I
can try
> if it would help.
>
> - Gardner
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, captian_rapscallion <
> captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
> >   Rob,
> > I like this version more than rev 1. How will this work for getting in
> > and out of a monohull marina slip?
> >
> >
> > --- In harryproa@...
<harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>, "Rob
> > Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > Even simpler, thanks Jim for the underdeck suggestion.
> > >
> > > Just realised the ww hull will heel when folded. Not a problem for
> > > traillering, but maybe for sleeping. I will check it out in the
> > > morning.
> > >
> > > The beams and hinges are both straight and level, the tramp is
> > > tightened when the second beam is block and tackled into place. Pin
> > > the beams in the brackets in case you are caught aback. There is a
> > > small overlap between the beams when folded, this should come
out with
> > > a geometry change, otherwise one or both will have to be angled, the
> > > same as before.
> > >
> > > Again, the track and car can be large and sloppy, there is no weight
> > > on them. Suspect a rope running fore and aft through a hole in the
> > > beam would do the job if necessary. May have to be a bit careful in
> > > big waves, but as long as someone is sitting in the cockpit, it is
> > > unlikely to capsize.
> > >
> > > Not able to change the boat's beam, but It will not be feasible (or
> > > race legal) to reduce/extend the beam while the
> > > boat is sailing, so better to make a second set of beams and
tramp for
> > > light air.
> > >
> > > Bearings will be UHMPWE, or pvc drainpipe. Either way, there will be
> > > a stiffener inside them to keep them round. The tow from the beams
> > > will wrap around them 25mm from the top and bottom, then the tow to
> > > attached them to the hull will wrap around above and below that. The
> > > ends will have flanges to stop them sliding out. Could remove a lot
> > > of the bearing material as only the ends are doing anything.
They are
> > > the same as the mast bearings so should not be a problem with grit
> > > etc. Friction wil be low as there is not much load on them. Moving
> > > the beams should be pretty easy for 90% of the way as well. A block
> > > and tackle or winch for the last 10% (of one of them) will
finish the
> > > job.
> > >
> > > The difference between these beams and those on Elementarry or
any other
> > > slider is that these have to be removed through the windward
hull, as
> > > well as telescope. This make for a lot of tapers, some of which are
> > > the wrong direction, hence 2 sets of pins.
> > >
> > > This is a pretty typical Rob rant when I have thought of something
> > > new, but not yet tested it. Probably sounds a lot like my enthusiasm
> > > for the removable beams for traillering. ;-)
> > >
> > > The rudders on both systems are mounted on struts attached to the
> > > bulkhead where the deck is cut away. They are not affected by the
> > > beam set up.
> > >
> > > I offered cat2fold $100 per boat, have not heard back
> > > yet. Happy to use his system as well, but it involves some mucking
> > > about with the lee hull shape.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > ROb
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, captian_rapscallion
> > > <captian_rapscallion@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting idea. I like the potential simplicity a slider
> > > > might offer when getting the boat ready to launch and
retrieve. The
> > > > slider offers the potential beam adjustment in light air, I really
> > > > like that too.
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@...
<harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>,
> > "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> G'Day,
> > > >>
> > > >> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part
beams.
> > > >>
> > > >> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are
mounted
> > > >> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When
the boat
> > > >> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
> > > >> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward
ends are
> > > >> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment
problems so
> > > >> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located,
could
> > > >> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler
> > piece
> > > >> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on
a piece
> > > >> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
> > > >>
> > > >> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the
drawings.
> > > >> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end
rises.
> > > >> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full
folding
> > > >> to happen.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If
not, this
> > > >> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting
the angle
> > > >> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and
operate.
> > > >> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time,
partially or
> > > >> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the
beams to
> > > >> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
> > > >>
> > > >> Look forward to your comments.
> > > >>
> > > >> regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Rob
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Not quite Cook strait but exposed to Canberra winter with nothing
between the windows and the snow covered Brindabellas. I am still
completing work from soggy weetbix in an upstairs bathroom- especially
after 'it would be really nice if we had a spa' followed by  'if
sitting in a spa, I'd like to have a view of the mountains and stain
glass on the other side'  and a new water efficient toilet - and a
vanity to go with the spa. I manged to put the vanity onto a later list.
Maybe one day I'll get clear enough to start work on something more fun,
  Robert

--- In harryproa@..., "Jim Baltaxe" <jim.baltaxe@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Robert
>
> I'm planning to do it this Spring. At the moment I'm involved with some
> major kitchen renovations. Basically a burst pipe some time ago turned
> the floor into Weetbix and this winter I was in the position of having a
> gaping hole in the floor and wall of the house so things were getting a
> bit out of hand. Imagine a hole in the South wall of a house on the
> South Coast of Cook Strait in a Southerly. Priorities are clear.
>
> By now I'm very flexible - I get far too much practice.
>
> Enjoy
> Jim Baltaxe
> They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>
> ________________________________
>
>  From: harryproa@...
> [mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Robert
>  Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 12:52 a.m.
>  To: harryproa@...
>  Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>
>
>
>  . Hi Jim & al
>  The continuity of the track would certainly tip my choice if I
> was
>  going that way, though i still prefer the sliders I agree that
> there
>  should not be a tension till just before the full extension, but
> I
>  reckon you'd need something to add a a bit of grunt for the last
> bit.
>  Tension across the deck would not be a problem but the fore aft
>  tension may be. There is only a small mechanical advantage
> there.
>  You must be more flexible than me to be able to kick yourself;
> my
>  missus has to do it for me ;<(
>
>  Have you started on a Harriette yet?
>  Robert
>
>  .
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97490433/grpId=10306322/grpspId=1740065791/
> msgId=4281/stime=1220014314/nc1=3975891/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>

Rob,
I like this version more than rev 1. How will this work for getting in
and out of a monohull marina slip?






--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Even simpler, thanks Jim for the underdeck suggestion.
>
> Just realised the ww hull will heel when folded.  Not a problem for
> traillering, but maybe for sleeping.  I will check it out in the
> morning.
>
> The beams and hinges are both straight and level, the tramp is
> tightened when the second beam is block and tackled into place.   Pin
> the beams in the brackets in case you are caught aback.   There is a
> small overlap between the beams when folded, this should come out with
> a geometry change, otherwise one or both will have to be angled, the
> same as before.
>
> Again, the track and car can be large and sloppy, there is no weight
> on them.  Suspect a rope running fore and aft through a hole in the
> beam would do the job if necessary.  May have to be a bit careful in
> big waves, but as long as someone is sitting in the cockpit, it is
> unlikely to capsize.
>
> Not able to change the boat's beam, but It will not be feasible (or
> race legal) to reduce/extend the beam while the
> boat is sailing, so better to make a second set of beams and tramp for
> light air.
>
> Bearings will be UHMPWE, or pvc drainpipe.  Either way, there will be
> a stiffener inside them to keep them round.  The tow from the beams
> will wrap around them 25mm from the top and bottom, then the tow to
> attached them to the hull will wrap around above and below that.  The
> ends will have flanges to stop them sliding out.    Could remove a lot
> of the bearing material as only the ends are doing anything.  They are
> the same as the mast bearings so should not be a problem with grit
> etc.  Friction wil be low as there is not much load on them.  Moving
> the beams should be pretty easy for 90% of the way as well.  A block
> and tackle or winch for the last 10% (of one of them) will finish the
> job.
>
> The difference between these beams and those on Elementarry or any other
> slider is that these have to be removed through the windward hull, as
> well as telescope. This make for a lot of tapers, some of which are
> the wrong direction, hence 2 sets of pins.
>
> This is a pretty typical Rob rant when I have thought of something
> new, but not yet tested it.  Probably sounds a lot like my enthusiasm
> for the removable beams for traillering.   ;-)
>
> The rudders on both systems are mounted on struts attached to the
> bulkhead where the deck is cut away.  They are not affected by the
> beam set up.
>
> I offered cat2fold $100 per boat, have not heard back
> yet.    Happy to use his system as well, but it involves some mucking
> about with the lee hull shape.
>
> regards,
>
> ROb
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, captian_rapscallion
> <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
> >
> > It's an interesting idea. I like the potential simplicity a slider
> > might offer when getting the boat ready to launch and retrieve. The
> > slider offers the potential beam adjustment in light air, I really
> > like that too.
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> >>
> >> G'Day,
> >>
> >> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
> >>
> >> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
> >> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
> >> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
> >> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
> >> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
> >> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
> >> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler
piece
> >> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
> >> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
> >>
> >> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
> >> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
> >> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
> >> to happen.
> >>
> >> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
> >> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
> >> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
> >> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
> >> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
> >> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
> >>
> >> Look forward to your comments.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >
> >
>

Enjoy
Jim Baltaxe
They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.

---

From: harryproa@... [mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 12:52 a.m.
To: harryproa@...
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat

. Hi Jim & al
The continuity of the track would certainly tip my choice if I was
going that way, though i still prefer the sliders I agree that there
should not be a tension till just before the full extension, but I
reckon you'd need something to add a a bit of grunt for the last bit.
Tension across the deck would not be a problem but the fore aft
tension may be. There is only a small mechanical advantage there.
You must be more flexible than me to be able to kick yourself; my
missus has to do it for me ;<(

Have you started on a Harriette yet?
Robert

.

I really like any design feature that would make the boat faster,
easier to set up or easier to sail.

The folder sounds like it would be easier to set up (plus)

I guess the only bugger for me is the tracks in the way at the slip,
and having to put the tracks on to dock and to take them off when it
comes time to sail.

How about a folder that folds only when launching and retrieving the
boat but slides to get in and out of a marina slip?

The advantages gained may not offset the additional complexity, but I
thought I'd throw it out there anyway.







--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Sorry, forgot about the rudders.  One bow of the little hull is folded
> up and glassed.  A very simple operation resulting in fair curves,
> although the keel line is a little crooked  due to careless
> workmanship.  The table and materials are ready for vac bagging the
> lee hull panel, hopefully on Friday.  The little hull deck is built
> and the rudders ready for fairing.  I have a rig.
>
> Slow progress,  but summer is fast approaching, so the pressure is
> mounting.  I will put one of  the rudders in the middle to make the
> assessment easier.  We are also putting them in the middle on thee
> 20m/66'ter in Portugal, but this will not be sailing for a while.   I
> see no reason why they won't work, as long as you don't fly a hull.
>
> Cat2 fold's reply to you sounds reasonable.  Pity they did not mention
> actual amounts.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> > Rob,
> > I was not inquiring about folding beams on the harriette, I was
asking about
> > moving the rudders away from the lee hull to midships or further. I am
> > particularly interested in that, because that would greatly
simplify the
> > construction of any variable beam design.
> > I have also contacted the cat2fold people and got this response:
"We would
> > like to know if you intend to build one boat or more using our folding
> > system? If you plan to build only one boat for your own use we can
work on a
> > minimum fee to allow the right for the one time patent use with an
> > endorsement of "not to compete or transfer information" and that
is for
> > obvious reasons."
> > However, since you will be doing the actual design, and I would be
having it
> > built by someone else, I expect that it is better that you contact
them.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> G'day,
> >>
> >> I have spent the last few days thinking about sliding beams and
> >> working out the best way to make them work. In the bigger boats they
> >> are definitely more effort to use (though not to build) than the
> >> scissors folding method.
> >>
> >> There is no problem using the scissors method on a harryproa, similar
> >> (less overlap on the beams) to what cat2fold uses. Harriette has
> >> fixed beams so i won't be trying them on that, but i have done a
rough
> >> drawing to see how they would work on the maxi trailer sailer and it
> >> can be done. Same applies for all the boats, with some reservations
> >> about the looks. I will post the drawings when i have cleaned them
> >> up.
> >>
> >> The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> >> the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> >> post the answer here when I get it.
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM, gardnerpomper <gardner@...>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I wanted to inquire again about opinions on the cat2fold system. In
> >> > looking
> >> > at the layout
> >> > for my "demountable" layout, it would allow an extended beam of
> 20'.
> >> > It
> >> > seems like this
> >> > scissoring system could be mounted on the edge of the deck and the
> >> > leeward
> >> > hull and
> >> > could easily scissor out to pretty much any beam I might want.
> >> >
> >> > Have you looked at it enough to see if it would work for for
the proas?
> >> > Particularly if we
> >> > can find out if the rudder will work at the mid-beam position,
like I
> >> > have
> >> > posted. You
> >> > mentioned that you were going to try it out on the harriette
you are
> >> > building. How is that
> >> > going?
> >> >
> >> > - Gardner
> >> >
> >> > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> G'day,
> >> >>
> >> >> Cat to fold is an interesting solution. To get 3560 degrees on the
> >> >> tillers,
> >> >> mount the rudders on the beams, although this may mess up the
> >> >> scissoring.
> >> >> Could also put the rudders in the hulls in daggerboard cases,
if you
> >> >> really
> >> >> wanted to scissor it.
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >> Rob
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am aware of cat2fold desing and actually thought it
> >> >> > would be the best solution for a folding big proa.
> >> >> > Trailering is not an issue for me. Accessing marinas
> >> >> > is. The scissor-like mechanism of cat2fold design
> >> >> > would probably offer most reliable and solid solution
> >> >> > to folding while afloat. To get reasonable beam while
> >> >> > folded steering wheels should be in the cockpit
> >> >> > (tillers would be better but I haven't been able to
> >> >> > figure out how to get 360 degrees rotation functional
> >> >> > with tillers). Rigid walkway and optional dingy ramp
> >> >> > would be hard to fit to folding option though. They
> >> >> > would be very nice but I haven't been able to figure
> >> >> > out those details yet. One monohull design had
> >> >> > removable walkway part of cockpit bottom that doubled
> >> >> > as gangplank. Perhaps removable/folding walkway and
> >> >> > dinghy ramp that can be lowered while folded. Two
> >> >> > gangplanks that can be attached between hulls as
> >> >> > walkway? Or perhaps just live without the added
> >> >> > complexity... Just remembered the KISS principle
> >> >> > again.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Arto
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

G'day,

Even simpler, thanks Jim for the underdeck suggestion.

Just realised the ww hull will heel when folded.  Not a problem for
traillering, but maybe for sleeping.  I will check it out in the
morning.

The beams and hinges are both straight and level, the tramp is
tightened when the second beam is block and tackled into place.   Pin
the beams in the brackets in case you are caught aback.   There is a
small overlap between the beams when folded, this should come out with
a geometry change, otherwise one or both will have to be angled, the
same as before.

Again, the track and car can be large and sloppy, there is no weight
on them.  Suspect a rope running fore and aft through a hole in the
beam would do the job if necessary.  May have to be a bit careful in
big waves, but as long as someone is sitting in the cockpit, it is
unlikely to capsize.

Not able to change the boat's beam, but It will not be feasible (or
race legal) to reduce/extend the beam while the
boat is sailing, so better to make a second set of beams and tramp for
light air.

Bearings will be UHMPWE, or pvc drainpipe.  Either way, there will be
a stiffener inside them to keep them round.  The tow from the beams
will wrap around them 25mm from the top and bottom, then the tow to
attached them to the hull will wrap around above and below that.  The
ends will have flanges to stop them sliding out.    Could remove a lot
of the bearing material as only the ends are doing anything.  They are
the same as the mast bearings so should not be a problem with grit
etc.  Friction wil be low as there is not much load on them.  Moving
the beams should be pretty easy for 90% of the way as well.  A block
and tackle or winch for the last 10% (of one of them) will finish the
job.

The difference between these beams and those on Elementarry or any other
slider is that these have to be removed through the windward hull, as
well as telescope. This make for a lot of tapers, some of which are
the wrong direction, hence 2 sets of pins.

This is a pretty typical Rob rant when I have thought of something
new, but not yet tested it.  Probably sounds a lot like my enthusiasm
for the removable beams for traillering.   ;-)

The rudders on both systems are mounted on struts attached to the
bulkhead where the deck is cut away.  They are not affected by the
beam set up.

I offered cat2fold $100 per boat, have not heard back
yet.    Happy to use his system as well, but it involves some mucking
about with the lee hull shape.

regards,

ROb



On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:50 AM, captian_rapscallion
<captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
> It's an interesting idea. I like the potential simplicity a slider
> might offer when getting the boat ready to launch and retrieve. The
> slider offers the potential beam adjustment in light air, I really
> like that too.
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> G'Day,
>>
>> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>>
>> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
>> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
>> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
>> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
>> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
>> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
>> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
>> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
>> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>>
>> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
>> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
>> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
>> to happen.
>>
>> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
>> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
>> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
>> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
>> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
>> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>>
>> Look forward to your comments.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the harryproa
group.

   File        : /folding schematic 2.jpg
   Uploaded by : proaharry <harryproa@...>
   Description : Folding Schematic #2

You can access this file at the URL:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/files/folding%20schematic%202.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/au/yahoo7/groups/original/ownmod/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

proaharry <harryproa@...>

. Hi Jim & al
The continuity of the track would certainly tip my choice if I was
going that way, though i still prefer the sliders  I agree that there
should not be a tension till just before the full extension, but I
reckon you'd need something to add a a bit of grunt for the last bit.
Tension across the deck would not be a problem but the fore aft
tension may be. There is only a small mechanical advantage there.
You must be more flexible than me to be able to kick yourself; my
missus has to do it for me ;<(

  Have you started on a Harriette yet?
  Robert


. - In harryproa@..., "Jim Baltaxe" <jim.baltaxe@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Robert &al
>
> The continuity across the removable track is what got me thinking
about putting the beams underneath the deck of the WW hull in the
first place. The notion of putting the tracks on a slight angle to get
the by-pass is so obvious I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it
myself.
>
> Assuming that the tramps are attached to the deck level edges of the
two hulls rather than to the beams (at least while the boat is
un/folded) there would only be significant tension on it for a brief
period just before the beams lock into place. At that point the
geometry of the beams would provide a considerable mechanical
advantage anyway, much like an umbrella gets its stiffness only when
it is fully open.
>
> Grit and salt etc. probably wouldn't be much more of a problem than
trailer sailers are already used to; just another thing to hose down.
>
> Enjoy
> Jim Baltaxe
>
> They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>  From: harryproa@...
[mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Robert
>  Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 1:02 p.m.
>  To: harryproa@...
>  Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>
>
>
>  G'day Rob and Jim et al,
>  I reckon it should work. Having one beam's pin permanently at angle
>  shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see, or even having the beam
>  permanently at an angle. What type of bearing surface and what would
>  be the frictional coefficient, and would it be susceptible to grit? I
>  am trying to anticipate the effort needed to move the beams around the
>  pin. About 1:8 should be enough to clear or 1"16 if both beams were
>  offset in opposite directions. I think this would be less hassle than
>  trying to find a good height for the beams. The difficulties I can see
>  are: getting good continuity across the removable track; mechanical
>  advantage needed to get the beams fully out if trampoline still
>  attached; and aligning the ww hull connections for sailing. Double
>  tracks should give enough support for v light sailing in partial
>  collapsed position.
>  Still have no objections to a sliding system
>  --- In harryproa@...
<mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "Jim Baltaxe" <jim.baltaxe@>
>  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Rob &al
>  >
>  > Very pretty. Is there any reason why you couldn't run the tracks on
>  some flat faces moulded on the underside of the WW hull deck? This
>  would allow for some "bury" supporting the beams and hinges even when
>  the boat is fully extended. A similar arrangement could reinforce and
>  protect the hinges on the LW hull as well but at the expense of more
>  complicated construction of the WW side of the LW hull.
>  >
>  > I also can't see any reason not to have the two beams offset
>  vertically from each other to permit them to pass by when folding
>  rather than having one beam twisting and canting during the folding
>  process.
>  >
>  > Enjoy
>  > Jim Baltaxe
>  >
>  > They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>  >
>  >
>  > ________________________________
>  >
>  > From: harryproa@...
<mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>  [mailto:harryproa@...
<mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au> ] On Behalf Of Rob Denney
>  > Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 3:49 a.m.
>  > To: harryproa@...
<mailto:harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>  > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > G'Day,
>  >
>  > Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>  >
>  > Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
>  > on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
>  > is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
>  > which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
>  > slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
>  > the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
>  > use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler
piece
>  > of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
>  > of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>  >
>  > The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
>  > This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
>  > Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
>  > to happen.
>  >
>  > It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
>  > is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
>  > on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
>  > The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
>  > all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
>  > get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>  >
>  > Look forward to your comments.
>  >
>  > regards,
>  >
>  > Rob
>  >
>

---

From: harryproa@... [mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 1:02 p.m.
To: harryproa@...
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat

G'day Rob and Jim et al,
I reckon it should work. Having one beam's pin permanently at angle
shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see, or even having the beam
permanently at an angle. What type of bearing surface and what would
be the frictional coefficient, and would it be susceptible to grit? I
am trying to anticipate the effort needed to move the beams around the
pin. About 1:8 should be enough to clear or 1"16 if both beams were
offset in opposite directions. I think this would be less hassle than
trying to find a good height for the beams. The difficulties I can see
are: getting good continuity across the removable track; mechanical
advantage needed to get the beams fully out if trampoline still
attached; and aligning the ww hull connections for sailing. Double
tracks should give enough support for v light sailing in partial
collapsed position.
Still have no objections to a sliding system
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "Jim Baltaxe" <jim.baltaxe@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Rob &al
>
> Very pretty. Is there any reason why you couldn't run the tracks on
some flat faces moulded on the underside of the WW hull deck? This
would allow for some "bury" supporting the beams and hinges even when
the boat is fully extended. A similar arrangement could reinforce and
protect the hinges on the LW hull as well but at the expense of more
complicated construction of the WW side of the LW hull.
>
> I also can't see any reason not to have the two beams offset
vertically from each other to permit them to pass by when folding
rather than having one beam twisting and canting during the folding
process.
>
> Enjoy
> Jim Baltaxe
>
> They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
[mailto:harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Rob Denney
> Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 3:49 a.m.
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>
>
>
> G'Day,
>
> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>
> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>
> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
> to happen.
>
> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>
> Look forward to your comments.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>

In the files , about half way down,
  Robert--- In harryproa@..., George Kuck
<chesapeake410@...> wrote:
>
> Hollow,
> Where are the pictures located ? What folder,photo or file section ?
>
> --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Jim Baltaxe <jim.baltaxe@...> wrote:
>
> From: Jim Baltaxe <jim.baltaxe@...>
> Subject: RE: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 7:19 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Rob &al
>
> Very pretty. Is there any reason why you couldn't run the tracks on
some flat faces moulded on the underside of the WW hull deck? This
would allow for some "bury" supporting the beams and hinges even when
the boat is fully extended. A similar arrangement could reinforce and
protect the hinges on the LW hull  as well but at the expense of more
complicated construction of the WW side of the LW hull.
>
> I also can't see any reason not to have the two beams offset
vertically from each other to permit them to pass by when folding
rather than having one beam twisting and canting during the folding
process.
> Enjoy
> Jim Baltaxe
>
> They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>
>
>
>
> From: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au [mailto:harryproa@ yahoogroups.
com.au] On Behalf Of Rob Denney
> Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 3:49 a.m.
> To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>
>
>
>
> G'Day,
>
> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>
> Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
> which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
> of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>
> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
> Consequently, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
> to happen.
>
> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
> all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>
> Look forward to your comments.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>

G'day Rob and Jim et al,
  I reckon it should work. Having one beam's pin  permanently at angle
shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see, or even having the beam
permanently at an angle. What type of bearing surface and what would
be the frictional coefficient, and would it be susceptible to grit? I
am trying to anticipate the effort needed to move the beams around the
pin. About 1:8 should be enough to clear or 1"16 if both beams were
offset in opposite directions. I think this would be less hassle than
trying to find a good height for the beams. The difficulties I can see
are: getting good continuity across the removable track; mechanical
advantage needed to get the beams fully out if trampoline still
attached; and aligning the ww hull connections for sailing. Double
tracks should give enough support for v light sailing in partial
collapsed position.
  Still have no objections to a sliding system
--- In harryproa@..., "Jim Baltaxe" <jim.baltaxe@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Rob &al
>
> Very pretty. Is there any reason why you couldn't run the tracks on
some flat faces moulded on the underside of the WW hull deck? This
would allow for some "bury" supporting the beams and hinges even when
the boat is fully extended. A similar arrangement could reinforce and
protect the hinges on the LW hull  as well but at the expense of more
complicated construction of the WW side of the LW hull.
>
> I also can't see any reason not to have the two beams offset
vertically from each other to permit them to pass by when folding
rather than having one beam twisting and canting during the folding
process.
>
> Enjoy
> Jim Baltaxe
>
> They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>  From: harryproa@...
[mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Rob Denney
>  Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 3:49 a.m.
>  To: harryproa@...
>  Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>
>
>
>  G'Day,
>
>  Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>
>  Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
>  on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
>  is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
>  which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
>  slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
>  the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
>  use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
>  of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
>  of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>
>  The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
>  This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
>  Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
>  to happen.
>
>  It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
>  is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
>  on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
>  The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
>  all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
>  get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>
>  Look forward to your comments.
>
>  regards,
>
>  Rob
>

Enjoy
Jim Baltaxe

They said, get a life. I looked on TradeMe but I couldn't find one.

---

From: harryproa@... [mailto:harryproa@...] On Behalf Of Rob Denney
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 3:49 a.m.
To: harryproa@...
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat

G'Day,

Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.

Each end of the beams are in large bearings. Leeward ones are mounted
on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks. When the boat
is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
which takes the load off the tracks. To fold, the windward ends are
slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
of the tracks which spans the cockpit. Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
of ply that is located by the seat ends.

The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
to happen.

It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something. If not, this
is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
all the way. Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.

Look forward to your comments.

regards,

Rob

It's an interesting idea. I like the potential simplicity a slider
might offer when getting the boat ready to launch and retrieve. The
slider offers the potential beam adjustment in light air, I really
like that too.





--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'Day,
>
> Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.
>
> Each end of the beams are in large bearings.  Leeward ones are mounted
> on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks.  When the boat
> is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
> which takes the load off the tracks.    To fold, the windward ends are
> slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
> the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
> use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
> of the tracks which spans the cockpit.   Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
> of ply that is located by the seat ends.
>
> The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
> This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
> Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
> to happen.
>
> It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something.  If not, this
> is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
> on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
> The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
> all the way.  Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
> get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.
>
> Look forward to your comments.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>

G'Day,

Just uploaded a picture of a scheme that does not use 2 part beams.

Each end of the beams are in large bearings.  Leeward ones are mounted
on the side of the boat, windward ones are on tracks.  When the boat
is fully extended, the windward ones sit in a housing (not shown)
which takes the load off the tracks.    To fold, the windward ends are
slid along the tracks (no sailing loads and no alignment problems so
the tracks don't have to be over strong or precisely located, could
use simple glass T tracks and cars). There is a removable filler piece
of the tracks which spans the cockpit.   Mount all 4 tracks on a piece
of ply that is located by the seat ends.

The tricky bit is the leeward hull left side hinge in the drawings.
This is angled so that as the beam rotates, the windward end rises.
Consequentlt, the windward ends do not collide and allow full folding
to happen.

It is late and I am tired, so may have missed something.  If not, this
is a simple, light folding system which apart from getting the angle
on the lee hull hinge right, would be very easy to build and operate.
The tramp stays on, the beams can be slid one at a time, partially or
all the way.  Only drama so far would be clambering over the beams to
get in and out of the cockpit in the marina.

Look forward to your comments.

regards,

Rob

-I like the idea of a gear drive for keeping them in parallel.
  There would be quite a few hundred kg on the friction surface, even
in shallow water as the ww hull leans in. Not insurmountible but could
be a bit of a drag, depending on the coefficient of friction.
  Robert
  -- In harryproa@..., George Kuck <chesapeake410@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I do not think the load should be vary much when not under sail and
in calm water which is when you would be reducing beam.  A friction
pad or roller on each beam should reduce friction.  I think the
biggest problem would be to have each beam retract at the same rate.
If one beam goes in ahead of other this would cause a bind that may be
a problem.  You would need a system to control the beams and keep both
in sync .  It would be nice if it can be made with electric winch or
electric gear driven (with manual backup) so you can just push a
button and watch the magic !
>
> George Kuck
> Chestertown, MD
>
> --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 5:41 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I can see the problems of the sliding beams being high friction if
> there is any load on the beams. Reducing the load may be possible by
> unweighting with a seal bucket on the ww side and/or the friction could
> be reduced with a lubricant or roller. The lubricant could be water if
> the right surface were used. I know I have gone on my arse a few times
> with thongs on shiny tiles. I still think that sliding beams would be
> simpler and big cranes seem to manage the problems.
> Also, the horizontal pins also have a fairly high friction if under
> load. The bigger the pin, the harder to overcome the friction as there
> is less mechanical advantage. A similar mechanical advantage by using
> a winch should sort out the sliding beams
> Robert
> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, "Robert" <cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I was playing with the idea a while back and worked on the vertical
> > component taken by I beams connected with a decent pin in the center,
> > with the fore aft component taken by a triangular section forward at
> > the center tapering back to nothing at the hulls and a triangular
> > section aft at the hull joins tapering to nothing at the centre. The
> > aft triangular sections are off set vertically to allow folding more
> > closely. They could be held in place with pins or a lashing.
> > I also worked on a vertical folding system that tucks the law hull
> > under the wwe. Jim Shanahan has done a nice design for a vertical
> > folding system. The problem with the vertical system is having to
> > remove the mast first or having a large area to drop the mast sideways
> > or have another joint at the law hull,
> >
> > Robert
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > The beams on harrys are made from a box with solid carbon tow
corners
> > > which take all the tension/compression loads induced by bending. If
> > > the tow is continued past the end of the beam and round a large
(same
> > > as the width of the beam) diameter pin the pin will be as strong as
> > > the beam. The pin them needs to be fastened equally strongly to
> > > either the hull or the end of the other half beam. This is no more
> > > difficult than spreading the loads from normal beams socketed in the
> > > hulls. It is the same way the bangles booms are fixed to the mast
> > > on the una rig
> > >
> > > The overlap in the beams is only to keep them from folding. The
> > > carbon does all the bending work. This is different to the kick up
> > > rudders where the overlap does the work.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM, George Kuck <chesapeake410@ >
wrote:
> > > > Hello Rob,
> > > >
> > > > With the scissors type folding system, would the Harryproa
with free
> > > > standing mast put more strain on hinge and sliding connection than
> > with a
> > > > regular stayed catamaran? With the stayed mast the load is
> > transferred to
> > > > hulls by the stays but with your pro style boats the entire load
> > of sails is
> > > > transferred to LW hull and the righting load is then transferred
> > directly to
> > > > beams. Would not this put extreme load on pivot points of
> > scissors where
> > > > they connect to LW hull. With a regular cat and stayed rig you
> > would not
> > > > have the same type of load on the pivot points. Unless you can
> > address this
> > > > problem I do not see how the scissor system can be used on your
> > boats. The
> > > > sliding beam would not have this problem or am I missing
something..
> > > >
> > > > George Kuck
> > > > Chestertown, MD
> > > > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Rob Denney <harryproa@>
> > > > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> > > > To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> > > > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:32 AM
> > > >
> > > > G'day,
> > > >
> > > > I have spent the last few days thinking about sliding beams and
> > > > working out the best way to make them work. In the bigger
boats they
> > > > are definitely more effort to use (though not to build) than the
> > > > scissors folding method.
> > > >
> > > > There is no problem using the scissors method on a harryproa,
> similar
> > > > (less overlap on the beams) to what cat2fold uses. Harriette has
> > > > fixed beams so i won't be trying them on that, but i have done a
> rough
> > > > drawing to see how they would work on the maxi trailer sailer
and it
> > > > can be done. Same applies for all the boats, with some
reservations
> > > > about the looks. I will post the drawings when i have cleaned them
> > > > up.
> > > >
> > > > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an
email to
> > > > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> > > > post the answer here when I get it.
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM, gardnerpomper
> > <gardner@networknow . org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> I wanted to inquire again about opinions on the cat2fold
system. In
> > > >> looking
> > > >> at the layout
> > > >> for my "demountable" layout, it would allow an extended beam of >
> > 20'. It
> > > >> seems like this
> > > >> scissoring system could be mounted on the edge of the deck and
> > the leeward
> > > >> hull and
> > > >> could easily scissor out to pretty much any beam I might want.
> > > >>
> > > >> Have you looked at it enough to see if it would work for for the
> > pros?
> > > >> Particularly if we
> > > >> can find out if the rudder will work at the mid-beam position,
> > like I have
> > > >> posted. You
> > > >> mentioned that you were going to try it out on the Harriette
> you are
> > > >> building. How is that
> > > >> going?
> > > >>
> > > >> - Gardner
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, "Rob Denney" <harryproa@
> > ..> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> G'day,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cat to fold is an interesting solution. To get 3560 degrees
on the
> > > >>> tillers,
> > > >>> mount the rudders on the beams, although this may mess up the
> > scissoring.
> > > >>> Could also put the rudders in the hulls in daggerboard cases,
> if you
> > > >>> really
> > > >>> wanted to scissor it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> regards,
> > > >>> Rob
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I am aware of cat2fold design and actually thought it
> > > >>> > would be the best solution for a folding big proa.
> > > >>> > Trailering is not an issue for me. Accessing marinas
> > > >>> > is. The scissor-like mechanism of cat2fold design
> > > >>> > would probably offer most reliable and solid solution
> > > >>> > to folding while afloat. To get reasonable beam while
> > > >>> > folded steering wheels should be in the cockpit
> > > >>> > (tillers would be better but I haven't been able to
> > > >>> > figure out how to get 360 degrees rotation functional
> > > >>> > with tillers). Rigid walkway and optional dingy ramp
> > > >>> > would be hard to fit to folding option though. They
> > > >>> > would be very nice but I haven't been able to figure
> > > >>> > out those details yet. One monohull design had
> > > >>> > removable walkway part of cockpit bottom that doubled
> > > >>> > as gangplank. Perhaps removable/folding walkway and
> > > >>> > dinghy ramp that can be lowered while folded. Two
> > > >>> > gangplanks that can be attached between hulls as
> > > >>> > walkway? Or perhaps just live without the added
> > > >>> > complexity.. . Just remembered the KISS principle
> > > >>> > again.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Arto
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

This is(or was) pretty radical concept maybe worth to mention and is
known to Rob very well.I just wonder,if this idea is "dead" already,or
somebody still is going to make it work one day?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=61&objectid=3198180

http://www.bimaran.com/

Regards,
proadude

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>
> The idea may have been around but the execution of the idea into a
> marketable product is what the patent is trying to protect. It would
> be up to them to file suit for patent infringement. They may be
> underfunded to do that or you might be underfunded to defend your
> right to use the design. It is a tactic of playing chicken. What's
> it worth to you ? My reco is be nice and pay their fee. If it works
> out well and is worthy of a sellable product then negotiate again for
> royalties for full use of the patent.
>
> In addition you get wonderful benefits of successful engineering,
> advertising and use of the copywrite Cat2Fold. If fees are not
> outrageous then can be a win for all. Don't try to circumvent a
> patent if the Cat2Fold design is the right solution. Veiled changes
> to an original idea are easy to identify and rarely are a successful
> defense.
>
> Best to treat them same as you would like your IP to be safeguarded.
> Nearly 100% of the time the fee or royalty payent is FAR less than
> defending a suit. You are not on firm ground unless you yourself
> can show prior patent or patent filing. Just because someone has an
> idea on the web or even made one prior does not let you off the hook.
>
> Patent infringement is a lawsuit where the patent owner claims a loss
> of revenue due to your use of their IP. Thus they have to show the
> income loss which usually implies that you are making and selling a
> product in competition with them. Making one for yourself is not
> necessarily a big issue, although they could sue for the small fee.
>
> One last word, patents are not globally enforceable. EU patents have
> to be filed in the EU. A US patent is not enforceable there. Other
> nations play the same game. Some have reciprocity others do not.
> Overall think it best to pay the fee and take advantage of the
> expertise, experience, and application principles of the Cat2Fold
> system if that fits best. Otherwise keep a watchful eye on the
> mailbox.
>
> JT
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, George Kuck <chesapeake410@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > I expect you may find variations of the folding system. You could
> design a similar one without copying the "Cat2Fold" or using the
> Cat2fold" name. Industries do this all the time.
> >
> > Here is one folding tri, just think of it as a proa with a extra
> hull.
> >
> > http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Exterior_Telstar.htm
> >
> > Many so called original designs are only evolutions of earlier
> designs. Unless you were copying the same folding system, I would
> not be concerned with patent, especialy if you were only building a
> one off type boat. You may end up with a better system if you start
> from scratch and taylor the system to your boat and not try to copy
> the Cat2Fold. If you come up with a diferent and better system you
> would not be infringing in patent.
> >
> > But it may be of benefeit to work with the Cat2Fold system even if
> you had to pay a fee to them if they can lend there expertise and
> name to your project. It may help in promoting your boat or for
> resale value.
> >
> > George Kuck
> > Chestertown, MD
> >
> > George Kuck
> > Chestertown, MD
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Gardner Pomper <gardner@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Gardner Pomper <gardner@>
> > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 4:14 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> >
> > Are you aware of any other scissoring type folding systems? I did a
> search on the net and the cat2fold people are the only hits I got. If
> you have some references, I would love to see other approaches.
> >
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Paul Wilson <opusnz@yahoo. ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am probably opening up a huge can of worms here but what makes
> the idea of a scissors folding multihull new? It seems to me that
> this idea has been around for years so is the fact that the cat2fold
> catamaran have a patent mean that they actually came up with
> something new or mean that they just went to the bother of patenting
> it and happened to be the first to do so. I don't mean to dismiss
> anyone's legitimate efforts, I am just curious regarding the
> legalities of this and know there are lots of smart people here to
> set me straight!
> >
> > Cheers, Paul
> >
> > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> > post the answer here when I get it.
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
>

I guess I have to come out of the closet and say that I am actually IPR lawyer. And after that continue that all patents are national. There are international application and investigation systems but granted patents are national (and contrary to usual belief there is no EU patent - member states have worked on the compromise for 35 years without being able to establish EU -patent so the old EPC system continues).   In the Espacenet database the INPADOC legal status found US, EP, NZ, AUS and WIPO applications/patents. Since the time for national applications under WIPO system is over there should not be more applications pending than US, EP (that is to be granted on named member states of EPC system), AUS and NZ. Note: Espacenet may not cover all data so check before relying on that.   The inventive step need not be that big. Not obvious to a person skilled in the art is enough by definition. The definition and knowledge of "person skilled in the art" varies a lot from country to country and is an inside joke among patent professionals... And the biggest commercial success is usually quite small inventive step because that way the market is more ready to accept it than if the invention was a truely break through one. Believe me, I've worked with inventions that were really far from current technology and to get them to market takes time.   But to Rob's questions: usually the royalty for patent license in mechanical industry varies between 0,5-5 % of the purchase price of that product. Of course the needed engineering, tailoring and technical support affect price a lot. So if someone wanted to buy folding beams from you how much would you charge? And what would be reasonable share of that price and the value added of folding?    BR Arto --- On Thu, 8/28/08, jjtctaylor <jtaylor412@cinci.rr.com> wrote: From: jjtctaylor <jtaylor412@cinci.rr.com> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 12:16 AM The idea may have been around but the execution of the idea into a marketable product is what the patent is trying to protect. It would be up to them to file suit for patent infringement. They may be underfunded to do that or you might be underfunded to defend your right to use the design. It is a tactic of playing chicken. What's it worth to you ? My reco is be nice and pay their fee. If it works out well and is worthy of a sellable product then negotiate again for royalties for full use of the patent. In addition you get wonderful benefits of successful engineering, advertising and use of the copywrite Cat2Fold. If fees are not outrageous then can be a win for all. Don't try to circumvent a patent if the Cat2Fold design is the right solution. Veiled changes to an original idea are easy to identify and rarely are a successful defense. Best to treat them same as you would like your IP to be safeguarded. Nearly 100% of the time the fee or royalty payent is FAR less than defending a suit. You are not on firm ground unless you yourself can show prior patent or patent filing. Just because someone has an idea on the web or even made one prior does not let you off the hook. Patent infringement is a lawsuit where the patent owner claims a loss of revenue due to your use of their IP. Thus they have to show the income loss which usually implies that you are making and selling a product in competition with them. Making one for yourself is not necessarily a big issue, although they could sue for the small fee. One last word, patents are not globally enforceable. EU patents have to be filed in the EU. A US patent is not enforceable there. Other nations play the same game. Some have reciprocity others do not. Overall think it best to pay the fee and take advantage of the expertise, experience, and application principles of the Cat2Fold system if that fits best. Otherwise keep a watchful eye on the mailbox. JT --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, George Kuck <chesapeake410@ ...> wrote: > > Hello > I expect you may find variations of the folding system.  You could design a similar one without copying the "Cat2Fold" or using the Cat2fold" name.  Industries do this all the time. >   > Here is one folding tri, just think of it as a proa with a extra hull. >   >  http://www.geminica tamarans. com/Exterior_ Telstar.htm >   > Many so called original designs are only evolutions of earlier designs.  Unless you were copying the same folding system, I would not be concerned with patent, especialy if you were only building a one off type boat.  You may end up with a better system if you start from scratch and taylor the system to your boat and not try to copy the Cat2Fold.  If you come up with a diferent and better system you would not be infringing in patent. >   > But it may be of benefeit to work with the Cat2Fold system even if you had to pay a fee to them if they can lend there expertise and name to your project.  It may help in promoting your boat or for resale value.  >   > George Kuck > Chestertown, MD  >   > George Kuck > Chestertown, MD >   > > > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Gardner Pomper <gardner@... > wrote: > > From: Gardner Pomper <gardner@... > > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat > To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 4:14 PM > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > Are you aware of any other scissoring type folding systems? I did a search on the net and the cat2fold people are the only hits I got. If you have some references, I would love to see other approaches. > > > - Gardner > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Paul Wilson <opusnz@yahoo. ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am probably opening up a huge can of worms here but what makes the idea of a scissors folding multihull new?  It seems to me that this idea has been around for years so is the fact that the cat2fold catamaran have a patent mean that they actually came up with something new or mean that they just went to the bother of patenting it and happened to be the first to do so.   I don't mean to dismiss anyone's legitimate efforts, I am just curious regarding the legalities of this and know there are lots of smart people here to set me straight! >   > Cheers, Paul >   > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will > post the answer here when I get it. > regards, > > Rob >

I can see the problems of the sliding beams being high friction if
there is any load on the beams. Reducing the load may be possible by
unweighting with a seabucket on the ww side and/or the friction could
be reduced with a lubricant or roller. The lubricant could be water if
the right surface were used. I know I have gone on my arse a few times
with thongs on shiny tiles. I still think that sliding beams would be
simpler and big cranes seem to manage the problems.
  Also, the horizontal pins also have a fairly high friction if under
load. The bigger the pin, the harder to overcome the friction as there
is less mechanical advantage. A similar mechanical advantage by using
a winch should sort out the sliding beams
Robert
--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> I was playing with the idea a while back and worked on the vertical
> component taken by I beams connected with a decent pin in the center,
> with the fore aft component taken by a triangular section forward at
> the center tapering back to nothing at the hulls and a triangular
> section aft at the hull joins tapering to nothing at the centre. The
> aft triangular sections are off set vertically to allow folding more
> closely. They could be held in place with pins or a lashing.
>  I also worked on a vertical folding system that tucks the lw hull
> under the ww. Jim Shanahan has done a nice design for a vertical
> folding system. The problem with the vertical system is having to
> remove the mast first or having a large area to drop the mast sideways
> or have another joint at the lw hull,
>
>  Robert
> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> >
> > G'day,
> >
> > The beams on harrys are made from a box with solid carbon tow corners
> > which take all the tension/compression loads induced by bending.  If
> > the tow is  continued past the end of the beam and round a large (same
> > as the width of the beam) diameter pin the pin will be as strong as
> > the beam.  The pin them needs to be fastened equally strongly to
> > either the hull or the end of the other half beam.    This is no more
> > difficult than spreading the loads from normal beams socketed in the
> > hulls.   It is the same way the vangless booms are fixed to the mast
> > on the una rig
> >
> > The overlap in the beams is only to keep them from folding.  The
> > carbon does all the bending work.   This is different to the kick up
> > rudders where the overlap does the work.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM, George Kuck <chesapeake410@> wrote:
> > > Hello Rob,
> > >
> > > With the scissors type folding system, would the Harryproa with free
> > > standing mast put more strain on hinge and sliding connection than
> with a
> > > regular stayed catamaran?  With the stayed mast the load is
> transferred to
> > > hulls by the stays but with your pro style boats the entire load
> of sails is
> > > transferred to LW hull and the righting load is then transferred
> directly to
> > > beams.  Would not this put extreme load on pivot points of
> scissors where
> > > they connect to LW hull.  With a regular cat and stayed rig you
> would not
> > > have the same type of load on the pivot points.  Unless you can
> address this
> > > problem I do not see how the scissor system can be used on your
> boats.  The
> > > sliding beam would not have this problem or am I missing something..
> > >
> > > George Kuck
> > > Chestertown, MD
> > > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Rob Denney <harryproa@>
> > > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> > > To: harryproa@...
> > > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:32 AM
> > >
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > I have spent the last few days thinking about sliding beams and
> > > working out the best way to make them work. In the bigger boats they
> > > are definitely more effort to use (though not to build) than the
> > > scissors folding method.
> > >
> > > There is no problem using the scissors method on a harryproa,
similar
> > > (less overlap on the beams) to what cat2fold uses. Harriette has
> > > fixed beams so i won't be trying them on that, but i have done a
rough
> > > drawing to see how they would work on the maxi trailer sailer and it
> > > can be done. Same applies for all the boats, with some reservations
> > > about the looks. I will post the drawings when i have cleaned them
> > > up.
> > >
> > > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> > > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> > > post the answer here when I get it.
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM, gardnerpomper
> <gardner@networknow. org>
> > > wrote:
> > >> I wanted to inquire again about opinions on the cat2fold system. In
> > >> looking
> > >> at the layout
> > >> for my "demountable" layout, it would allow an extended beam of >
> 20'. It
> > >> seems like this
> > >> scissoring system could be mounted on the edge of the deck and
> the leeward
> > >> hull and
> > >> could easily scissor out to pretty much any beam I might want.
> > >>
> > >> Have you looked at it enough to see if it would work for for the
> pros?
> > >> Particularly if we
> > >> can find out if the rudder will work at the mid-beam position,
> like I have
> > >> posted. You
> > >> mentioned that you were going to try it out on the Harriette
you are
> > >> building. How is that
> > >> going?
> > >>
> > >> - Gardner
> > >>
> > >> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, "Rob Denney" <harryproa@
> ..> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> G'day,
> > >>>
> > >>> Cat to fold is an interesting solution. To get 3560 degrees on the
> > >>> tillers,
> > >>> mount the rudders on the beams, although this may mess up the
> scissoring.
> > >>> Could also put the rudders in the hulls in daggerboard cases,
if you
> > >>> really
> > >>> wanted to scissor it.
> > >>>
> > >>> regards,
> > >>> Rob
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I am aware of cat2fold design and actually thought it
> > >>> > would be the best solution for a folding big proa.
> > >>> > Trailering is not an issue for me. Accessing marinas
> > >>> > is. The scissor-like mechanism of cat2fold design
> > >>> > would probably offer most reliable and solid solution
> > >>> > to folding while afloat. To get reasonable beam while
> > >>> > folded steering wheels should be in the cockpit
> > >>> > (tillers would be better but I haven't been able to
> > >>> > figure out how to get 360 degrees rotation functional
> > >>> > with tillers). Rigid walkway and optional dingy ramp
> > >>> > would be hard to fit to folding option though. They
> > >>> > would be very nice but I haven't been able to figure
> > >>> > out those details yet. One monohull design had
> > >>> > removable walkway part of cockpit bottom that doubled
> > >>> > as gangplank. Perhaps removable/folding walkway and
> > >>> > dinghy ramp that can be lowered while folded. Two
> > >>> > gangplanks that can be attached between hulls as
> > >>> > walkway? Or perhaps just live without the added
> > >>> > complexity.. . Just remembered the KISS principle
> > >>> > again.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Arto
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I was playing with the idea a while back and worked on the vertical
component taken by I beams connected with a decent pin in the center,
with the fore aft component taken by a triangular section forward at
the center tapering back to nothing at the hulls and a triangular
section aft at the hull joins tapering to nothing at the centre. The
aft triangular sections are off set vertically to allow folding more
closely. They could be held in place with pins or a lashing.
  I also worked on a vertical folding system that tucks the lw hull
under the ww. Jim Shanahan has done a nice design for a vertical
folding system. The problem with the vertical system is having to
remove the mast first or having a large area to drop the mast sideways
or have another joint at the lw hull,

  Robert
--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> The beams on harrys are made from a box with solid carbon tow corners
> which take all the tension/compression loads induced by bending.  If
> the tow is  continued past the end of the beam and round a large (same
> as the width of the beam) diameter pin the pin will be as strong as
> the beam.  The pin them needs to be fastened equally strongly to
> either the hull or the end of the other half beam.    This is no more
> difficult than spreading the loads from normal beams socketed in the
> hulls.   It is the same way the vangless booms are fixed to the mast
> on the una rig
>
> The overlap in the beams is only to keep them from folding.  The
> carbon does all the bending work.   This is different to the kick up
> rudders where the overlap does the work.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM, George Kuck <chesapeake410@...> wrote:
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > With the scissors type folding system, would the Harryproa with free
> > standing mast put more strain on hinge and sliding connection than
with a
> > regular stayed catamaran?  With the stayed mast the load is
transferred to
> > hulls by the stays but with your pro style boats the entire load
of sails is
> > transferred to LW hull and the righting load is then transferred
directly to
> > beams.  Would not this put extreme load on pivot points of
scissors where
> > they connect to LW hull.  With a regular cat and stayed rig you
would not
> > have the same type of load on the pivot points.  Unless you can
address this
> > problem I do not see how the scissor system can be used on your
boats.  The
> > sliding beam would not have this problem or am I missing something..
> >
> > George Kuck
> > Chestertown, MD
> > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rob Denney <harryproa@...>
> > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> > To: harryproa@...
> > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:32 AM
> >
> > G'day,
> >
> > I have spent the last few days thinking about sliding beams and
> > working out the best way to make them work. In the bigger boats they
> > are definitely more effort to use (though not to build) than the
> > scissors folding method.
> >
> > There is no problem using the scissors method on a harryproa, similar
> > (less overlap on the beams) to what cat2fold uses. Harriette has
> > fixed beams so i won't be trying them on that, but i have done a rough
> > drawing to see how they would work on the maxi trailer sailer and it
> > can be done. Same applies for all the boats, with some reservations
> > about the looks. I will post the drawings when i have cleaned them
> > up.
> >
> > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> > post the answer here when I get it.
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM, gardnerpomper
<gardner@networknow. org>
> > wrote:
> >> I wanted to inquire again about opinions on the cat2fold system. In
> >> looking
> >> at the layout
> >> for my "demountable" layout, it would allow an extended beam of >
20'. It
> >> seems like this
> >> scissoring system could be mounted on the edge of the deck and
the leeward
> >> hull and
> >> could easily scissor out to pretty much any beam I might want.
> >>
> >> Have you looked at it enough to see if it would work for for the
pros?
> >> Particularly if we
> >> can find out if the rudder will work at the mid-beam position,
like I have
> >> posted. You
> >> mentioned that you were going to try it out on the Harriette you are
> >> building. How is that
> >> going?
> >>
> >> - Gardner
> >>
> >> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, "Rob Denney" <harryproa@
..> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> G'day,
> >>>
> >>> Cat to fold is an interesting solution. To get 3560 degrees on the
> >>> tillers,
> >>> mount the rudders on the beams, although this may mess up the
scissoring.
> >>> Could also put the rudders in the hulls in daggerboard cases, if you
> >>> really
> >>> wanted to scissor it.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I am aware of cat2fold design and actually thought it
> >>> > would be the best solution for a folding big proa.
> >>> > Trailering is not an issue for me. Accessing marinas
> >>> > is. The scissor-like mechanism of cat2fold design
> >>> > would probably offer most reliable and solid solution
> >>> > to folding while afloat. To get reasonable beam while
> >>> > folded steering wheels should be in the cockpit
> >>> > (tillers would be better but I haven't been able to
> >>> > figure out how to get 360 degrees rotation functional
> >>> > with tillers). Rigid walkway and optional dingy ramp
> >>> > would be hard to fit to folding option though. They
> >>> > would be very nice but I haven't been able to figure
> >>> > out those details yet. One monohull design had
> >>> > removable walkway part of cockpit bottom that doubled
> >>> > as gangplank. Perhaps removable/folding walkway and
> >>> > dinghy ramp that can be lowered while folded. Two
> >>> > gangplanks that can be attached between hulls as
> >>> > walkway? Or perhaps just live without the added
> >>> > complexity.. . Just remembered the KISS principle
> >>> > again.
> >>> >
> >>> > Arto
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Rob,

That would depend on how much help they might provide in executing their design.
No
help and figure it out yourself $100 as good faith with no liability to
Cat2Fold,...... Full
print set, then much the same as you would ask for a single use HP plans set
maybe up to
$1000.   Anywhere in between depending on level of detail requested.  I would
use your
own fee structure as guidelines for sharing expertise.

Really paying for their design effort much the same as recouping your time and
resources
for HP plans.  Make sense ?    Also depends on your future intentions..... pay
for expertise
plus copywrite if you want to use their product name.  (which may imply some
design
liability thus higher cost).

Knowing you,...... pay them $100, and  perhaps some fee schedule if your need
assist.

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Fun times.  Gray has apparently stripped w back to it's original
> layout, but does not have time to use it.
>
> Paul, you are correct, and if I had come up with the idea, I would be
> arguing the patentability of the cat2fold idea.  Reading their patent,
> I suspect that what I have planned is probably outside it.
>
> However, I got the idea from them, so I am happy to pay them for it as
> JT suggests.   Got a nice reply from them,  asking what I think it is
> worth.  Any suggestions?
>
> regards,
>
> rob
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM, proadude <rbmaui@...> wrote:
> > This is(or was) pretty radical concept maybe worth to mention and is
> > known to Rob very well.I just wonder,if this idea is "dead" already,or
> > somebody still is going to make it work one day?
> >
> > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=61&objectid=3198180
> >
> > http://www.bimaran.com/
> >
> > Regards,
> > proadude
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The idea may have been around but the execution of the idea into a
> >> marketable product is what the patent is trying to protect. It would
> >> be up to them to file suit for patent infringement. They may be
> >> underfunded to do that or you might be underfunded to defend your
> >> right to use the design. It is a tactic of playing chicken. What's
> >> it worth to you ? My reco is be nice and pay their fee. If it works
> >> out well and is worthy of a sellable product then negotiate again for
> >> royalties for full use of the patent.
> >>
> >> In addition you get wonderful benefits of successful engineering,
> >> advertising and use of the copywrite Cat2Fold. If fees are not
> >> outrageous then can be a win for all. Don't try to circumvent a
> >> patent if the Cat2Fold design is the right solution. Veiled changes
> >> to an original idea are easy to identify and rarely are a successful
> >> defense.
> >>
> >> Best to treat them same as you would like your IP to be safeguarded.
> >> Nearly 100% of the time the fee or royalty payent is FAR less than
> >> defending a suit. You are not on firm ground unless you yourself
> >> can show prior patent or patent filing. Just because someone has an
> >> idea on the web or even made one prior does not let you off the hook.
> >>
> >> Patent infringement is a lawsuit where the patent owner claims a loss
> >> of revenue due to your use of their IP. Thus they have to show the
> >> income loss which usually implies that you are making and selling a
> >> product in competition with them. Making one for yourself is not
> >> necessarily a big issue, although they could sue for the small fee.
> >>
> >> One last word, patents are not globally enforceable. EU patents have
> >> to be filed in the EU. A US patent is not enforceable there. Other
> >> nations play the same game. Some have reciprocity others do not.
> >> Overall think it best to pay the fee and take advantage of the
> >> expertise, experience, and application principles of the Cat2Fold
> >> system if that fits best. Otherwise keep a watchful eye on the
> >> mailbox.
> >>
> >> JT
> >>
> >> --- In harryproa@..., George Kuck <chesapeake410@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello
> >> > I expect you may find variations of the folding system. You could
> >> design a similar one without copying the "Cat2Fold" or using the
> >> Cat2fold" name. Industries do this all the time.
> >> >
> >> > Here is one folding tri, just think of it as a proa with a extra
> >> hull.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Exterior_Telstar.htm
> >> >
> >> > Many so called original designs are only evolutions of earlier
> >> designs. Unless you were copying the same folding system, I would
> >> not be concerned with patent, especialy if you were only building a
> >> one off type boat. You may end up with a better system if you start
> >> from scratch and taylor the system to your boat and not try to copy
> >> the Cat2Fold. If you come up with a diferent and better system you
> >> would not be infringing in patent.
> >> >
> >> > But it may be of benefeit to work with the Cat2Fold system even if
> >> you had to pay a fee to them if they can lend there expertise and
> >> name to your project. It may help in promoting your boat or for
> >> resale value.
> >> >
> >> > George Kuck
> >> > Chestertown, MD
> >> >
> >> > George Kuck
> >> > Chestertown, MD
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Gardner Pomper <gardner@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > From: Gardner Pomper <gardner@>
> >> > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> >> > To: harryproa@...
> >> > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 4:14 PM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Paul,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Are you aware of any other scissoring type folding systems? I did a
> >> search on the net and the cat2fold people are the only hits I got. If
> >> you have some references, I would love to see other approaches.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - Gardner
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Paul Wilson <opusnz@yahoo. ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am probably opening up a huge can of worms here but what makes
> >> the idea of a scissors folding multihull new? It seems to me that
> >> this idea has been around for years so is the fact that the cat2fold
> >> catamaran have a patent mean that they actually came up with
> >> something new or mean that they just went to the bother of patenting
> >> it and happened to be the first to do so. I don't mean to dismiss
> >> anyone's legitimate efforts, I am just curious regarding the
> >> legalities of this and know there are lots of smart people here to
> >> set me straight!
> >> >
> >> > Cheers, Paul
> >> >
> >> > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> >> > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> >> > post the answer here when I get it.
> >> > regards,
> >> >
> >> > Rob
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

G'day,

Fun times.  Gray has apparently stripped w back to it's original
layout, but does not have time to use it.

Paul, you are correct, and if I had come up with the idea, I would be
arguing the patentability of the cat2fold idea.  Reading their patent,
I suspect that what I have planned is probably outside it.

However, I got the idea from them, so I am happy to pay them for it as
JT suggests.   Got a nice reply from them,  asking what I think it is
worth.  Any suggestions?

regards,

rob

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM, proadude <rbmaui@...> wrote:
> This is(or was) pretty radical concept maybe worth to mention and is
> known to Rob very well.I just wonder,if this idea is "dead" already,or
> somebody still is going to make it work one day?
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=61&objectid=3198180
>
> http://www.bimaran.com/
>
> Regards,
> proadude
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>>
>> The idea may have been around but the execution of the idea into a
>> marketable product is what the patent is trying to protect. It would
>> be up to them to file suit for patent infringement. They may be
>> underfunded to do that or you might be underfunded to defend your
>> right to use the design. It is a tactic of playing chicken. What's
>> it worth to you ? My reco is be nice and pay their fee. If it works
>> out well and is worthy of a sellable product then negotiate again for
>> royalties for full use of the patent.
>>
>> In addition you get wonderful benefits of successful engineering,
>> advertising and use of the copywrite Cat2Fold. If fees are not
>> outrageous then can be a win for all. Don't try to circumvent a
>> patent if the Cat2Fold design is the right solution. Veiled changes
>> to an original idea are easy to identify and rarely are a successful
>> defense.
>>
>> Best to treat them same as you would like your IP to be safeguarded.
>> Nearly 100% of the time the fee or royalty payent is FAR less than
>> defending a suit. You are not on firm ground unless you yourself
>> can show prior patent or patent filing. Just because someone has an
>> idea on the web or even made one prior does not let you off the hook.
>>
>> Patent infringement is a lawsuit where the patent owner claims a loss
>> of revenue due to your use of their IP. Thus they have to show the
>> income loss which usually implies that you are making and selling a
>> product in competition with them. Making one for yourself is not
>> necessarily a big issue, although they could sue for the small fee.
>>
>> One last word, patents are not globally enforceable. EU patents have
>> to be filed in the EU. A US patent is not enforceable there. Other
>> nations play the same game. Some have reciprocity others do not.
>> Overall think it best to pay the fee and take advantage of the
>> expertise, experience, and application principles of the Cat2Fold
>> system if that fits best. Otherwise keep a watchful eye on the
>> mailbox.
>>
>> JT
>>
>> --- In harryproa@..., George Kuck <chesapeake410@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello
>> > I expect you may find variations of the folding system. You could
>> design a similar one without copying the "Cat2Fold" or using the
>> Cat2fold" name. Industries do this all the time.
>> >
>> > Here is one folding tri, just think of it as a proa with a extra
>> hull.
>> >
>> > http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Exterior_Telstar.htm
>> >
>> > Many so called original designs are only evolutions of earlier
>> designs. Unless you were copying the same folding system, I would
>> not be concerned with patent, especialy if you were only building a
>> one off type boat. You may end up with a better system if you start
>> from scratch and taylor the system to your boat and not try to copy
>> the Cat2Fold. If you come up with a diferent and better system you
>> would not be infringing in patent.
>> >
>> > But it may be of benefeit to work with the Cat2Fold system even if
>> you had to pay a fee to them if they can lend there expertise and
>> name to your project. It may help in promoting your boat or for
>> resale value.
>> >
>> > George Kuck
>> > Chestertown, MD
>> >
>> > George Kuck
>> > Chestertown, MD
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Gardner Pomper <gardner@> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Gardner Pomper <gardner@>
>> > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
>> > To: harryproa@...
>> > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 4:14 PM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you aware of any other scissoring type folding systems? I did a
>> search on the net and the cat2fold people are the only hits I got. If
>> you have some references, I would love to see other approaches.
>> >
>> >
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Paul Wilson <opusnz@yahoo. ca>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I am probably opening up a huge can of worms here but what makes
>> the idea of a scissors folding multihull new? It seems to me that
>> this idea has been around for years so is the fact that the cat2fold
>> catamaran have a patent mean that they actually came up with
>> something new or mean that they just went to the bother of patenting
>> it and happened to be the first to do so. I don't mean to dismiss
>> anyone's legitimate efforts, I am just curious regarding the
>> legalities of this and know there are lots of smart people here to
>> set me straight!
>> >
>> > Cheers, Paul
>> >
>> > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
>> > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
>> > post the answer here when I get it.
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>>
>
>

This is(or was) pretty radical concept maybe worth to mention and is
known to Rob very well.I just wonder,if this idea is "dead" already,or
somebody still is going to make it work one day?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=61&objectid=3198180

http://www.bimaran.com/

Regards,
proadude




--- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>
> The idea may have been around but the execution of the idea into a
> marketable product is what the patent is trying to protect.  It would
> be up to them to file suit for patent infringement.  They may be
> underfunded to do that or you might be underfunded to defend your
> right to use the design.  It is a tactic of playing chicken.   What's
> it worth to you ?  My reco is be nice and pay their fee.  If it works
> out well and is worthy of a sellable product then negotiate again for
> royalties for full use of the patent.
>
> In addition you get wonderful benefits of successful engineering,
> advertising and use of the copywrite Cat2Fold.  If fees are not
> outrageous then can be a win for all.  Don't try to circumvent a
> patent if the Cat2Fold design is the right solution.  Veiled changes
> to an original idea are easy to identify and rarely are a successful
> defense.
>
> Best to treat them same as you would like your IP to be safeguarded.
> Nearly 100% of the time the fee or royalty payent is FAR less than
> defending a suit.   You are not on firm ground unless you yourself
> can show prior patent or patent filing.  Just because someone has an
> idea on the web or even made one prior does not let you off the hook.
>
> Patent infringement is a lawsuit where the patent owner claims a loss
> of revenue due to your use of their IP.  Thus they have to show the
> income loss which usually implies that you are making and selling a
> product in competition with them.  Making one for yourself is not
> necessarily a big issue, although they could sue for the small fee.
>
> One last word, patents are not globally enforceable.  EU patents have
> to be filed in the EU.  A US patent is not enforceable there.  Other
> nations play the same game.  Some have reciprocity others do not.
> Overall think it best to pay the fee and take advantage of the
> expertise, experience, and application principles of the Cat2Fold
> system if that fits best.  Otherwise keep a watchful eye on the
> mailbox.
>
> JT
>
> --- In harryproa@..., George Kuck <chesapeake410@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > I expect you may find variations of the folding system.  You could
> design a similar one without copying the "Cat2Fold" or using the
> Cat2fold" name.  Industries do this all the time.
> >
> > Here is one folding tri, just think of it as a proa with a extra
> hull.
> >
> >  http://www.geminicatamarans.com/Exterior_Telstar.htm
> >
> > Many so called original designs are only evolutions of earlier
> designs.  Unless you were copying the same folding system, I would
> not be concerned with patent, especialy if you were only building a
> one off type boat.  You may end up with a better system if you start
> from scratch and taylor the system to your boat and not try to copy
> the Cat2Fold.  If you come up with a diferent and better system you
> would not be infringing in patent.
> >
> > But it may be of benefeit to work with the Cat2Fold system even if
> you had to pay a fee to them if they can lend there expertise and
> name to your project.  It may help in promoting your boat or for
> resale value.
> >
> > George Kuck
> > Chestertown, MD
> >
> > George Kuck
> > Chestertown, MD
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 8/27/08, Gardner Pomper <gardner@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Gardner Pomper <gardner@>
> > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Reducing beam afloat
> > To: harryproa@...
> > Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 4:14 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> >
> > Are you aware of any other scissoring type folding systems? I did a
> search on the net and the cat2fold people are the only hits I got. If
> you have some references, I would love to see other approaches.
> >
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Paul Wilson <opusnz@yahoo. ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am probably opening up a huge can of worms here but what makes
> the idea of a scissors folding multihull new?  It seems to me that
> this idea has been around for years so is the fact that the cat2fold
> catamaran have a patent mean that they actually came up with
> something new or mean that they just went to the bother of patenting
> it and happened to be the first to do so.   I don't mean to dismiss
> anyone's legitimate efforts, I am just curious regarding the
> legalities of this and know there are lots of smart people here to
> set me straight!
> >
> > Cheers, Paul
> >
> > The next problem is. What about the patent? I have sent an email to
> > the cat2fold guys asking them what they want if we use it. I will
> > post the answer here when I get it.
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
>