Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
posted 05-14-2001 09:01 PM ET (US)
Picked up this '88 20' Outrage.
T-top, '88 200 Johnson, twin batts.
Hull is pretty clean, very few short surface cracks, drain tubes/seals look good.
Boat has about 1/4 tank of gas.
It's sitting on an aluminum tandem trailer.
Took it to a scale: 3870 lbs.
According to the Reference section, the 18 Outrage comes in bare at 1250!
|Tom W Clark||
posted 05-14-2001 09:26 PM ET (US)
An '88 Outrage 20' weights 1850 lbs. It has a 77 gallan tank so 19.25 gallons @ 6.5 lbs/gal = 125 lbs. two group 24 battery weights c. 85 lbs. You are probably generous on the motor @ 500 but, of course, you need to figure the weight of the rigging/wiring above and beyond what came with the boat from the factory so you may be pretty close. I think the trailer will weight quite a bit more than 500, perhaps as much as 1000, but you should weight it by itself to be sure. My advice would be to fill the fuel tank so you know for sure how much fuel you have. Figure out how much the trailer really weights then re-weight the whole rig. What about other accessories besides the T-top?
At any rate let's re-estimate: boat 1850 + motor 500 + trailer 1000 + gas 125 + batteries 85 + T-top 100 = 3,660 lbs. You're getting closer...
posted 05-14-2001 10:02 PM ET (US)
This issue of overweight, waterlogged Whalers keeps coming up.
Lets try to back into it from the opposite direction.
Water weighs 8 lb/gallon. One of our standard 5 gallon sheetrock compound/fishing buckets holds 5 gallons or 40 lb of water. That's a lot of water.
How much room is there sandwiched between the inner and outer shell for water? Does the boat hold 3 five gallon buckets of water?
400 lbs of additional waterlogged weight would mean 10 five gallon buckets of water held in the hull! Anybody ever drained that much water out of a Whaler. No way!
Most truly overweight Whalers are from bad resin/glass repair work. Water absorbsion is a small component.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 05-14-2001 10:22 PM ET (US)
Larry makes a good point. I have wondered myself how you could ever truly use weight to figure out if water is in the hull. The only way you could do that would be if you knew the exact weight of your particular boat. Whaler uses a spec. weight of 1850 for this boat. A nice round number. What if it really weighed 1825 or 1880? As Larry points out, what about production variances? Without knowing this you might be attributing the weight to water. Also, how do you figure the exact weight of every little piece of hardware that has been added?
posted 05-14-2001 11:33 PM ET (US)
I've wondered the same thing, but then I'm always fooled by how many gallons fit in areas with large dimensions that are very thin.
I'll top the tank and weigh the trailer separately and we'll try for some more specific numbers.
I also read a post in here about using an IR camera to spot the water - but that would assume a clear temperature differential would be present. (I've seen pictures of huge gas tanks and water towers taken with IR cameras and you *can* clearly see the water line). Anyone know if this is offered as a common service?
There's one other thing - the bottom paint line on this boat has a clear pitch to the rear. Here's a couple of pics: http://world.std.com/~janda/whaler/ I just haven't seen enough [of these] whalers to know if this is sitting unusually low for this setup.
Another thing: the engine fully up does not clear the water; it's in about 3-4 inches (no one in the boat) - see the pics.
And another weight item - a danforth up front.
This trailer really might weigh 1000 lbs?!
btw- really appreciate the responsiveness of this forum- it's great to have this virtual community!
|Tom W Clark||
posted 05-14-2001 11:54 PM ET (US)
Nice boat. There was a time when that boat was THE boat I wanted to have. Even has my beloved Johnson brand 200 and the highly desirable reversible pilot seat as well as the welded bow rail. I'm sure it's a waterlogged piece of s*** but I'd be willing to take it off your hands for a few hundred...
If you're thinking of all the foam as if it were a big sponge, then yes, it could theoretically hold quite a bit of water, but I don't think it works this way. It is closed cell foam after all.
The water line looks fine to me.
As to trailer weight you said it is an aluminum trailer so perhaps not, but if it were a steel trailer then certainly it could. At any rate I suspect it weights more than 500.
posted 05-15-2001 02:38 AM ET (US)
An aluminum trailer like that probably weighs about 750-800lbs. You could have more gas than the gauge shows. Front cooler seat was not included in hull weight. Tee top could be more than 100. Oil tank? Bottom paint has weight too. Fiberglass gunnels? I think engine weighs about 460.
I think BW weights are often variable per hull. Just depends on how much glass gets put in by the chopper gun operator. It's also possible boat could have been ordered with "workboat" specs, adding more glass weight.
With a welded rail, the boat was made in FL and is a 1989 MODEL YEAR. Probably made Sept-Dec 1988.
Older OMC engines had poor trim/tilt ranges, so that is your problem there.
See Cetacea Page 20 for similar hull in Revenge trim.
posted 05-15-2001 07:50 AM ET (US)
The way its setting in the water looks fine to me. Down here in the salt water (better bouyancy) I see boats setting like that all the time. In fact I saw the local dealer put bottom pain on that part of the lower unit on a brand new boat.
posted 05-15-2001 08:00 AM ET (US)
Chopper gun operator???? Arent you thinking about a bayliner??? hehe
posted 05-15-2001 01:07 PM ET (US)
How would one know if it was built to "workboat" specs? Be nice to know. VINs sometimes tell that kind of thing for cars - would the hull id show this?
posted 05-15-2001 02:20 PM ET (US)
I believe all Classic BW's were layed up by chopper gun. Traditional resin impregnated woven glass matting was not used. Somewhere I remember someone telling me this, much to my surprise. Evidently with the foam hull construction, this is the preferred method, and just as strong.
posted 05-15-2001 11:36 PM ET (US)
Not to get off track -
Not say that I am right. I understood that the pre-90s whalers were hand laid fiberglass then with Reebok they started using chopper guns to lower costs and with the return to Burnswick they are hand laid agian. I do know for sure the new whalers are hand laid, this is also stated in their catalog and web site. I also remember an very old Edgewater Boat comparison ad which had the Boston Whaler fiberglass being blown with chopper guns while Edgewater was handlaid.
posted 05-16-2001 12:29 AM ET (US)
Risking hostile reactions, I have been told and have read that gel-coat will allow water to penatrate, that is one reason we wax. And why there are recommendations that the hulls should be painted besides the obvoius reasons with anti-fouling paint. A fiberglass repair reference book gave one method to make sure the hull was dry enough to work on was to tape some suran wrap or plasic on the hull and to wait until mositure no longer shows up between it and the hull before making a repair. I am not sure how those moisture indicators that have been mentioned before make their measurements, that if they are effective at showing the amount of moisture in a material or if there are pockets or layers of actual water that can be detected.
Even if you were to allow another 600 lb.s other fluids (oil, etc.) and add ons (wiring harness, and odd items) fudge factors on the trailer etc., that would still leave 400 lb.s. that would leave about 48 gallons (@ 8.3 lb/gal) of water and dirt? Even though this sounds crazy I believe that it is possible carry that much moisture with in the gelcoat over the total area possible on that boat with some moisture within the hull. If you looked at from that perspective it would really be a small amount of water per square foot. A example would be a block of wood from being fresh compared to being seasoned or dried, neither feels wet but there is a definite weight difference.
posted 05-16-2001 12:46 AM ET (US)
That bottom paint wheighs quite a bit too. The fact that the boat has bottom paint says that the boat has spent time in the water. Pick up a gallon at a store and see how much it weighs, how much you need for 2 coats, and if there are more than 2 coats on the botom of the boat? This would reduce the estimate of moisture overall.
And if the water is in the gelcoat as I suggest an IR camera would not show this also a moisture indicator would show a pretty much consistant reading through out the hull. And If even if you drilled a hole in the hull there would be no water to drain. In the end if I a correct there is nothing to worry about, the longer you keep it on the trailer the less it will weigh over time.
posted 05-16-2001 08:03 AM ET (US)
I'm sorry, but NO WAY could I believe there could be 48 gallons of water in a hull without some serious delamination and water dripping out like crazy when its on the trailer. 48gal is almost a 55gal drum!! Thats alot of water.
posted 05-16-2001 09:18 AM ET (US)
Current tally is:
200 misc stuff
And we get 90 lbs from the scale - I flipped 2 digits by accident:
210 diff, or 25.3 gals of water.
Re paint: I just painted the boat and 2 coats is 1 can.
In summary, we're in the noise level now.
The only *real* water sign I saw was when painting the boat: I jacked up the boat at the keel at the transon and rocked it side to side to paint where the bunks touch. When I rolled it toward the side with the aft drain hole (gas tank / cable tunnel cavity?) I got a trickle. I didn't see it, so I don't know if it was coming down from the upper cavity or oozing from the tube seal. Is that drain hole at the very lowest point in the cavity above?
posted 07-30-2002 04:42 PM ET (US)
How much water could there be? 60 gallons? 80 gallons? More?
We are in the process of drying out a very very wet 25 Outrage here in South California...
History: This boat sat uncovered on a trailer for many many years with likely all the plugs in. The former LA (lazy ass) owner put it in the water for 6 months trying to sell it with minimal effort. Under all that dirt is a beautiful boat of which few could see (including my wife). Even the former owner noted how slow the boat seemed under power during our little pre-sale run. Prior to pulling the boat, the front and rear fish wells would fill within hours... and when you jumped up/down inside the front ledge of the front fishwell, water would squirt out of the screw holes about 3 inches. The boat was as wet as it could be. It did sit down in the water a little... nothing drastic.
What we found: The boat was heavy enough to be noted by the lift operator. As suspected, all tubes were rotten with some actually missing (always do the finger test gentlemen, even if the boat is less than 40 years old). I actually found a plug with a tube attached deep in the front fishwell... again you have to love the former LA owner. I wonder if he knew what the tube on his plug was? Easier just to throw it back into the black water of the hold. Most deck screws are loose and probably leak, and there are several extra mystery holes which are open in the deck hull. 5200 Sealer to the rescue. It is strange because considerable care was given in sealing the forward bilge pump hose, the fish tank hoses, and extra wiring... must have been the original owner.
But there is hope... under full power for 4 hours, I noticed the screw holes had drained and no visible moisture in areas were we earlier saw water (mostly old screw holes for misplaced pumps etc.)
I just happened to stop by when the yard pulled the boat. Water literally poured out from nowhere but soon (3 to 4 minutes the stream became a trickle and now 12 hours later a steady drip. The yard (Schock Boats in Newport Beach) was not surprised and indicated this was more normal than not and wanted the leave the boat to drain just for a day or two before sealing the new tubes. A week would be better but it's summer in paradise.
Based on what I saw and after talking to the yard guys, the exit rate after the first 24 hours of drying was maybe 3 gallons per minute (light garden hose volume) for 4 minutes for 2 of the tubes (3x4x2=24 gallons)with a third tube giving maybe 3 gpm for less time - maybe 2 minutes (1x3x2 = 6 gallons). Big pour volume = 30 gallons. The wells were pumped dry prior to lifting.
The drip rate was maybe a gallon an hour for the rear fishwell for the first 12 hours (1x12x1=12 gallons) decreasing steadily to maybe a 1/2 gallon per hour total for the next 12 hours(0.5x12x1=6 gallons). The front fishwell and anchor tubes combined dripped at maybe 5 gallon per hour for 4 hours!, 1 gph for 8 hours, and now is a drip drip drip... 0.25 gph for 12 hours... (5x4+1x8+0.25x12=31 gallons). Total drip volume is 12+6+31=49 gallons
Now all of this is really based on only a couple of guesses and some observations... but worst case total could be 79 gallons or roughly 630 pounds of water and still dripping. My gut feeling is there is not enough room for this volume but we do have a little ripple effect at the water line along both beams. The recollection of the yard guys and my reasoning is likely off... say 25%. Still that close to 60 gallons or roughly 475 pounds (fuzzy math noted). A weight closer to 650 pounds seems about right given the performance comments of the LA owner.
Key to the above is that the drip rate volumes exceed the big pours!!! A lots of little drips soon add up.
I think that very little water is next to the hull but considerable water exists next to the deck and against any vertical partitions which may have lots of space between the foam and the fiberglass. I actually removed a couple of dozen deck screws to help vent the hull and will spend a couple of hours with a very small hose and a shop vac (with tap hammer and drill in hand)looking for sizeable pockets of water.
I also am not convinced that the solution is to drill holes in the transome and hope that water flows downhill to the opening. Unless you make extensive channels in the foam, especially up the beams of the boat in our case, the water will simple sit where is will sit but should exit where it came in from if you shift the boat around and change the level (side to side and front to back). And wait. This winter (after the Xmass Boat Parade) I will overdrill the tubes and look for water and damage. Based on the lack of surprise by Schock, I am convinced that all Whalers (even newer ones) have water. The only question is how much water.
Rule No. 1: Do the finger test gentlemen. Make sure your tubes are healthy.
posted 07-30-2002 07:30 PM ET (US)
Quit worrying about it, put it in the water and see how low it sits.........unless of course, like a boat i looked at, it is bottom painted four inches below the rub rail and the current owner tells you that thats where it sits......stay away from these ones!
posted 07-30-2002 10:07 PM ET (US)
Capt_Tidy - it's nice to see a observent open mind at work,there is alot of truth in what you presented. Heavy Internally Wet BW's are more prevallent than most people on this forum believe.Any hole,crack,loose screw,poorly bedded piece of hardware,ect is a point of ingress of water into the hull.I have a 14' hull that i have been trying to dry out all spring and summer that is still soaking wet to the tune of more than 400Lbs to a sister hull the same year- both 1992, ones a Edgewater built(Wet)the other a Rockland (dry). The more Whalers i look at/examine,the more i feel BW's are like BMW's overpriced,and overrated,and are only Legends in closed minded owners immaginations.You have to be more viggilent to not letting water into the hull in a Whaler than any other boat made.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 07-31-2002 12:31 AM ET (US)
It probably would have been better to start a new thread to discuss your boat but it is fun to review this old thread especially in light of my own comments above and what I have learned since then.
If you haven’t done so already, I suggest you take the time to review this thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001747.html
How much water could there be in your 25’ Whaler? Potentially, quite a bit. Do not think that water is residing in spaces in your hull between the foam and the skins. The water is in the foam itself. The potential capacity of water for your boat is the whole volume of foam in it.
Now a 25’ Outrage has a swamped capacity of 9000 lbs. The boat weighs 3000 lbs. So taking the difference as the volume of the hull itself we might surmise the volume to be 100 cubic feet or 750 gallons if the foam were fully saturated. Even if the hull were saturated to only 40% as CSW was that would still be 300 gallons of water or 2400 lbs!
I do not actually think your boat has this much water in it but that is the potential. Quite a bit more than 60 or 80 gallons.
As far as getting significant amounts of water out of a Whaler hull, I do not have much good advice. My own efforts at drying CSW amounted to very little. Once the water is in the foam it is there to stay.
I still have a chunk of wet foam that has been in my house dry and warm for over three months completely exposed to air on all sides. I took this chunk to our local rendezvous a few weeks ago and let everybody pick it up. It looks like a nice fluffy piece of foam but the weight feels like a phone book.
There is a guy I have corresponded with who used to work for Whaler as a hull repair technician. In an email he told me he spent two weeks in a Whaler repair seminar learning repair techniques. He was taught that the worst thing for a hull was to have puncture damage to the bottom of the hull that would allow water to be forced into the foam. The danger was not of forcing the ‘glass from the foam causing delamination but actually forcing water into the cellular structure of the foam itself.
He went on to say once the foam got wet the only thing to do was remove and replace it.
posted 07-31-2002 04:19 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the last two hour of fast reading about the CSW... absolutely great stuff. I did miss it before I posted my reply. And yes... a new forum is a good suggestion if this goes any further.
Now...how can I add to these discusions and experiments. That is a good question. And what is everyone looking for... a way to dry-vac an entire boat in a cost effective manner. What is cost effective... would I pay a $1000/1500/2000 to dry out my 25 Outrage say to within 10% of original weight. Maybe? Is it possible without destroying it. What about all these newer used hulls that cost up to $60,000. What will they be like in 20 years (same age as my 25'Outrage). Is there a market for this kind of thing? Would people flock to dry out their boats? Yearly?
I live in the Costa Mesa, California area which has a good amount of high tech boat building going on... including alot of large scale vacuum applications... notably used in producing race sailing hulls these days. The technology is here and available.
Given my observations, and thinking aloud (and no alcohol in sight), what if I some how magically organized a massive vaccuum-heat-dehumidifier experiment (all three are done to lay down racing hulls these days). Essentually I would be taking a 250 cfm blower-pump and a heater/dehumifier and a large plastic 11mm sealed bag and suck hot dry air under vacuum over and hopefully through the boat... somehow. I do a similar thing to remove gasoline products from soil as part of my regular work... why not a boat... my boat. The real problems is the limited surface area exposure of the foam in a whaler. A vaccuum helps remove the water but heat, dry air, under vacuum would be best.
Componets of the experiment would be:
1) Pre-experiment weigh-in and analysis against manufacture spec (essentually a mass balance to determine the degree of saturation)
2) Pre-experiment foam testing - weight and drying as done for the CSW.... wet and dry spots.
3) A one month heat-dehumidifier-vaccuum/blower application for the entire boat with all existing deck screws, tubes, panels, and other removed to provide maximum expose to foam.
3) One month weigh-in and mass balance analysis.
4) If warrented, another month experiment where the hull is drilled at reqular intervals (through the entire foam pocket across the entire bottom, and hot dry air is reapplied under vacuum. Re-inject foam, repair holes, new bottom paint... bingo... a drier boat.
Sounds crazy.... right? It's probably better to simply buy a larger engine, better beer, and go fishing. Let me think, re-read all the past stuff and think about it... before I re-open my big mouth.
posted 07-31-2002 08:21 PM ET (US)
Cap't_Tidy-What a pleasure it is to read and ponder good original thoughts.I here by raise your rank to "Admiral of Original Thoughts". Yes the problem to drying out a whaler is the limited surface exposed to atmosphere thur the holes in the hull.I have been thinking about to methods.1st-bag the whole hull and pull a vacume on it an boil away the water due to the drop in vapor preasure,as in whats done in refrigeration systems.2nd-freeze dry the hull and use the fact that water can go from a solid stage(ice) right to a vapour stage without going thur the liquid stage.The most energy effcient i feel would be a large vacume pump/and bag the hull.Now the question is where to get the pump.Or how much to rent a large autoclave to put the hull in??? Then,again we can allways ship to hulls to a Artic Climate for a couple of years and let mother nature do a freeze dry process??? Lets have some more ideas????
posted 07-31-2002 09:19 PM ET (US)
You have left out the obvious - centrifugal force. Does anyone have design for a centrifuge that can handle a 4000 pound Whaler.. I'll remove the engine just to be safe.
Please go right ahead and freeze your boat and let us know how the hull holds together. I moved from Canada to California to avoid all freeze/dry issues.
Question 1: Tom and others... is it possible to visually access the degree of moisture in the foam? Does a simple soil moisture indicator (the thin little needle probe thing found in garden centers) work on foam? Could one get a continuos read simply by shoving a probe through the foam?
Other Suggestion: If we get enough people to do mass balances (assuming all hulls were essentually the same weight at birth) for non-factory equipment not considered in the factory specs (engines, fuel, batteries, electronics, etc, etc..)for all types of BWs and measure the distance to the waterline in a couple of places along the hull, and indicate salt verse fresh water... I could easily develop a relationship between height of water on the hull and degree of saturation. BUT we will need many people to participate so we can develop a linear relationship with some statistical meaning (need to eliminant those boats built on Friday with the odd beer bottle in the foam... sorry that from years of driving rusty Chevys versus percison made BMWs. And it would likely take several months.
The result... a x-y plot of weight versus waterline height with water saturation plotted as isocontours... and all one would have to do is determine your true boat weight, how to far to water at the bow and transome and presto... your personel degree of foam saturation.
Hell's its only a little math... and the centrifuge probably won't be ready for a year if I start building it tonight!
posted 07-31-2002 09:57 PM ET (US)
When I removed my floor on my RevengeV22, I found 14 gals of water(112 lbs) in the hull around the belly tank. It wasn't in the foam but the area made into the hull to hold the belly tank. The tank was not completely foamed in. Water gets into this area from washing down the deck, just sitting out in the rain etc. Pull your rear inspection plate and see if you find anything. I'm not familiar with the 20' Outrage or It's floor configuration. Hope this helps,
posted 07-31-2002 10:20 PM ET (US)
I thought about using centrifugal force.(What do you think-7gs ??? would be enough)I started tying a rope to the bow eye,but it looked like it would pull out when i started to whip the hull around over my head,hehe!
Besides the water logged problem is not funny!!!It almost enough to cry over when having a beer.
I firmly believe a good data base is needed,but it appears people here don't want to know the facts and the extent of the problem!
Dealers here in the NE for the most part weigh the used BW's boats coming in on trades before a deal is set,so they won't get burned on a wet hull.
I firmly believe thats why there are so many private sales of BW's.
It's a wide spread problem,thats needs to be addressed,but will people step up to the project??
posted 08-01-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)
BW is not the Lone Ranger on this problem. I have an older Mako and Robalo with the same problem (I think...I really don't know for sure-and that also goes for of couple of my Whalers). I am inclined to think that all glass boats with foam inside should have removeable floors or liners. I would love to experiment here (to bad a guy has to work for a living) with building a removeable floor in my Mako, Robalo and 16 foot BW. I would make a 3" water channel around the outside of the floor for better drainage from the work area of the floor. These are concerns based on the amount of abuse and neglect each boat has suffered and "a feeling" rather than real fact so the experiment would be subjective and recreational.
posted 08-01-2002 01:14 PM ET (US)
now im curious? I hve an 86 montauk with a 93 100hp Johnson, bottom painted, 28 gallon gas tank,..as i keep the boat in the water is there a correct measurement of how low the boat should be sitting in the water?
posted 08-02-2002 10:28 AM ET (US)
Hendrickson is right, any boat with closed cell foam can end up with waterlogged foam. Many old Mako's, Robalo's, Aquasports etc here in Florida have waterlogged foam floatation, and in complete restorations, removing all of the old foam is frequently involved. Lots of older Mako's, etc have their self bailing scuppers underwater because ofthe water weight gain. And this is in south Florida, where freeze cycles aren't a big issue in destroying closed cell foam cells.
Waterlogged foam seems even more common in non-whaler boats, as in many cases the foam is directly in contact with bilge water as opposed to a whaler where the foam is sealed in fiberglass.
posted 08-02-2002 11:39 AM ET (US)
Hey guys - I just was reading this thread and a few thoughts came to mind. Aside from the tongue in cheek comments regarding the centrifuge. But my immediate thought - provide access holes (2, 3 or 4 inch diamter) in the aft bottom and a contoured plenum (housing) covering all of those holes. Warm, dry air is provided to this plenum. Near the bow deck area - provide a couple of holes (2 or 3 inch diameter) and another contoured plenum covering these holes. Connect a blower to take suction from the exit plenum. The idea is to provide a forced flow of warm, dry air under a slightly negative pressure to the hull interior which will bring that environment to that of the warm dry air - i.e. remove the moisture from the hull.
The inlet air should be as dry as possible which may suggest using a portable air conditioner and/or heater.
One could measure the relative humidity of the air exiting the hull to get an indication of the moisture being removed and condition of the hull interior.
These are just some initial thoughts and hopefully this helps. --- Jerry/Idaho
posted 08-02-2002 11:51 AM ET (US)
When I was in the Coast Guard at Sault Ste. Marie about 30 yeas ago the damage control people rebuilt some of the Winner I/O's. They put a wood grid in glassed to the bottom. In each grid opening they placed a precut piece of foam. Before doing this they wrapped each piece in glass and resin. Labor intensive (the Govt. didn't mind), but each foam billet had it's own water-tight integity.
posted 08-02-2002 11:57 AM ET (US)
Tom, what ever happened to the piece you sent to BW?
I think the idea of drying out the foam is fine, but the fact remains that if the water got in, it got in through ruptures in each of the cells of the closed cell foam, so, unless the foam is repaired, the cells are now open and will obsorb water faster.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 08-02-2002 01:24 PM ET (US)
I have not heard anything from Whaler about what they did with the chunk I sent them. Maybe I will make an inquiry. If I learn anything I will report it.
I think your reasoning about the ruptured cell walls is perfectly logical. That is exactly what I would expect. But I'm not sure it's that simple. A relatively undamaged foam sample from CSW that was totally wet and then dried out has been under water for several months now. It has reabsorbed water but not nearly as much as I would have expected.
The sample in question started out weighing 14.5 oz and after being dried out weighed only 1.1 oz. Now after three months of submersion is only weighs 3 oz. If the cell walls were all ruptured wouldn't it soak up water like a sponge? Yet this is not the case.
On the other hand, a small sample of foam that I had from CSW that was much softer (presumably from crunches and impacts) dried out and then reabsorbed water in very little time, like a couple of days.
There seems to be a correlation between difficulty in removing water and difficulty in reabsorbing water. In some ways I think that if a method of drying out the foam could be found, the difficult to dry hulls that would end up being the most durable into the future.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.