LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
‘I’ BEFORE ‘E,’
BUT NOT IN PLACE OF ‘ME’
PassageMaker Magazine is far and
away the finest boating publication I
have ever read. The articles and writers
are always the very best. Because of
your impeccable record, I was
wondering if a new usage of “I” and
“me” is routinely accepted nowadays.
Regarding the penultimate line on page
75 of the Ranger Tug 27 article (PMM
Jan./Feb. ’ 11), I was taught that it
should be “leaving Jeff and me” rather
than “leaving Jeff and I.” Is it now
accepted in the publishing world that
you can say “I” in place of “me”?
As usual, John’s article on the
Ranger Tug was terrific.
John Braitmayer
Marion, Massachusetts
Many thanks for the great catch
of our grammatical error. I’ll be
more watchful in the future and try
not to fall into that colloquial trap
again. Wishing you all the best
reading and cruising in the months
ahead.—John Wooldridge
LOOKING FOR A QUICK CURE
I have a 2003 Hampton 550 that
I cruise in the waters of the Pacific
Northwest. I need to replace the
through-hull transducer; to do this, I
must raise the boat out of the water.
After we replace the transducer and
seal it with 3M 4200 fast-cure
sealant, can I place the boat back in
the water immediately and drive it
at 10 knots for approximately three
hours, or should it sit out of the
water overnight to cure?
Jim Eisberg
Prescott, Arizona
When it comes to through-hull
installations, I prefer a conservative
approach. Having said that, 3M 4200
and many other polyurethane sealants
are designed to cure in the absence of
air, including underwater. Therefore, in
theory, you could launch shortly after
completing the installation. (Be sure
to remove all traces of bottom paint
where the seal will be made; few
things adhere to antifouling paint,
including 4200.)
There are two concerns, however. If
the flange of the transducer does not
fit tightly against the hull, the pressure
of the water may force the sealant out
of the gap and lead to a leak. This is
unlikely but worth mentioning. The
second concern is the pressure created
by the vessel’s motion; added to the
static water pressure, this may cause
the sealant to be dislodged, which also
would lead to leaking. This latter
scenario is more likely. In fact, I’ve
seen it happen.
My advice would be to allow an
overnight cure with the boat out of the
water. If that’s not possible, allow the
sealant to cure while the vessel remains
dockside overnight.—Steve D’Antonio
NAME THAT BOAT: ROUND 2
I have another “mystery boat”
for you guys to identify. I saw the
beautiful trawler pictured below as
she was cruising in to the dock in
Poulsbo, Washington. She had a
steel hull, but I can’t determine the
manufacturer. Perhaps you or your
readers can help me out.
I subscribe to PMM and enjoy
every issue. Keep up the excellent
work. Although I don’t currently own
a boat, I have been dreaming about
this gorgeous one.
Gene Cervelli
Paradise Valley, Arizona
We passed your photo around the
PMM office and came up with several
guesses—a Chuck Neville design,
perhaps? Or a Sunnfjord?
Now we turn to our readers for
help. If you’ve seen this lovely trawler
out cruising and have any information
to share or can otherwise identify
her, send us an email at editor@
passagemaker.com.—John Wooldridge
A PUZZLING OIL ANALYSIS
I own a 1991 Hatteras with Detroit
Diesel 8-92 turbo engines and 1,200
original hours on them. I always
change the oil at the end of the
season and have it analyzed, and it
has always come up perfect. This past
fall when I had the oil analyzed after
90 engine hours, the lab came up
with a sodium level of 128, a
potassium level of 32, and coolant
present in the starboard engine. The
sodium and potassium levels were
similar for the port engine.
I thought that the lab might be
wrong, so I ran only the starboard
engine at 1000 rpm in neutral at the
pier for six hours and had the oil
retested by the same lab. This time,
they said the starboard sodium level
was 53, the potassium level was zero,
and there was no coolant present. I
don’t know if the potassium and/or
coolant levels went away because
there was a mistake in the original
analysis or because there was less
time and strain on the engine during
the retest. I ran the engine for five
more hours and sent a sample to the
same lab, and to another lab. For that
test, both labs agreed that the sodium
level was elevated to between 37 and
82, and there was no coolant or
potassium present.
My mechanic said that since I
haven’t had any trouble in the past
and both engines have always had low
sodium and potassium levels and now
both engines seem to be elevated, that
must mean the labs are wrong. I don’t
