The TDB-21' build has been initiated

RLLigman said:
We're still very good friends. She teaches biochemistry at Albion College, in southern Michigan.

Interesting comment for a guy who is employed by the firm that makes the post-it note adhesive; a failed effort into adhesive development research.

Was just giving you some grief.

Not only Post-It but our Scotchgard line was an accident, our non woven masks and so on. Back when I was in the lab and developing car/boat care products, I got sick of smelling like solvent at the end of the day so I added some fragrance to a wax I was working on. Turns out one of the primary reasons people liked the product was that it didn't make them smell like solvents at the end of the day. Launched a whole new line of products after that.

Mark
 
RLLigman said:
Wasn't this all debunked by internal employee testimony that confirmed that the inventor was actually someone from outside 3M who had his research stolen after disclosing the formula to company employees?

Never heard this part. I do know the whole story from beginning to end but had not heard this.

From Wiki:

"Inventor Alan Amron has made claims to be the inventor who in 1973 disclosed the technology used on the Post-it Note to 3M in 1974.[15][16] His 1997 suit against 3M was settled and 3M paid Amron.[15] As part of the settlement, Amron undertook not to make future claims against the company except if ever a breach of the settlement agreement should occur.[15] However, in 2016, he launched a further suit against 3M,[15][16] asserting that 3M were wrongly claiming to be the inventors, and seeking $400 million in damages.[17][18] At a preliminary hearing, a federal judge ordered the parties to undergo mediation.[15] The suit was subsequently dismissed declaring the previous 1998 settlement agreement to be upheld.[18][19]

In July of 2016 a former 3M marketing department employee, Daniel Dassow, voluntarily came forward as an eyewitness that in 1974 Alan Amron had in fact disclosed his Press-on memo sticky notes invention to 3M.[20]"

Mark
 
Last edited:
I should have picked-up on the lack of adhesive at the hull deck intersection and camera angle to determine that they were just test-fit to each other...
Are you going to have any access port to the bow eye through the bow area floatation foam?
 
We honestly hadn't discussed that yet. It is a lot of extra work to provide access, and do it right. As long as it is properly sealed and installed with nylocks, it shouldn't be an issue. That being said, I completely understand the peace of mind one gets by having access. That is certainly some food for thought for us!
 
I lot of folks who buy these boats view them as an heirloom purchase, passed through the generations. Quality construction and associated service will always win-out, as evidenced by Bankes' longevity in this field. You have the option of making these air filled compartments, rather than foam filled with a waterproof round access hatch affixed.
 
I agree completely, that has been our mind-set while getting TDB up and running back in the north east. We have taken everything that my father made Olsen Marine known for, and applied it to the TDB builds. Building these boats to the highest standards possible, while maintaining the original design. That plays into what we were discussing with the forward flotation compartment. Sure, we could save some money on the build and leave the compartment empty as an air tank for flotation purposes, which would also leave access to the bow eye. The only problem with that, is in a damage stability situation, if that tank is compromised, then it is no longer doing its job to keep you afloat. This goes for all the cavities and designed foam tanks; fill them with close cell foam and they will keep you afloat no matter what. The right way to provide access to the bow eye, is also the most costly. With the tank filled with foam, and an access hatch installed like you mentioned, a tunnel can be cut through the foam down to the bow eye. It would then need to be widened at the end to allow for use of tools. All that being said, I have never seen a properly sized bow eye fail, as long as the laminate remains intact, even in boats over 40 years old. I have seen undersized ones fail, and ones pull through rotten hulls though.
 
With all due respect, the fact that this has already occurred with TDBs during a previous manufacturer's ownership interval largely negates the weight of your personal observations and experience statement.
 
Back
Top