Dziadeczek

Hi Pat,
Thanks for your post.
To answer your questions, first of all, the home made photoetching process has a certain learning curve in it, if one has never done it before. There are several variables to tackle and adjust, depending on your chemicals, their concentrations, temperatures, thickness of your brass, your UV light source, and so on. There are no universal numbers, one has to figure them out through his/her trials and errors, because one uses different chemicals and different ligh sources. So, prepare for yourself adequate supplies of materials and arm yourself with plenty of time/patience. For first several trials to determine those variables, use small samples of your brass and chemicals, not to waiste them excessively. For sure, your first trial or two at least, will not turn out perfectly.  So, be patient and try again and again, until you'll arrive at good results. Write down your variables to be used later as your standards.
For most of your questions you'll find the answers in the above mentioned tutorial by Gene Berger, which is here:   http://geneberger-models.com/photo-etching/   Here I will only signal some points to watch.
I was using a rather thick brass plate = 0.01 inch (0,025 mm). For that thickness you'll have to etch it on both sides simultaneously to avoid excessive underetching (etchant creeping under the photoresist foil ruining details).
You have to prepare your artwork as perfectly as possible, using one of the graphic programs, Photoshop, Corel or Gimp, or similar. Make your drawings in large resolution, 900 dpi, if possible. Everything has to be either pitch black or completely transparent, no grey areas whatsoever. Make sure your drawings are in the proper scale (size) - hence you see a ruler in my artwork. After printing both transparencies i checked one final time to make sure details were in correct sizes. After you are done, make a mirror image copy of it - for your transparencies pocket (see further). Then copy it on laser transparencies using a laser copier with settings of biggest contrast and biggest resolution. The more perfect your artwork, the better will be your etched plate.
Once you have both transparencies mirror imaged, you have to create from them a pocket for your brass plate. Tape one transparency to a sheet of glass iluminated from underneath, with its matte side facing you. Tape the second transparency on top of the first, aligning carefully both, but this one with its dull side facing the first transparency. Carefully remove from glass pane both transparencies which are taped together along three edges, to form a pocket.
 
You have to keep in mind that, if you are using a photoresist foil, the process is similar to analog b/w photography (a negative film vs a positive paper principle). Your transparencies have to be in "negative" of what you want to etch. That means, everything you want to be etched away, has to be black and areas to be left intact, have to be transparent. If you are using a photosensitive spray Positive20 (popular in Europe), this has to be in reverse, what'll be etched away has to be transparent and what has to be left intact, must be black. The carefull allignment of both transparencies is critical for a sharp edges of etched plate.
Another critical variable is a super careful and detailed preparation of your brass plate - polishing and wet sanding with several gradations of fine sanpaper, until the surface is sparkling clean and shines like a mirror. Wear rubber gloves to avoid any grease spots from your fingertips. Do a final rinse of your plate with distilled water, which should run off the brass in sheets.
Now, under UV protective light (a yellow bug lightbulb is OK) you'll apply a layer of your photoresist to both surfaces of your plate . This comes in a roll, sort of like a Saran wrap, covered in a black protective plastic foil, to avoid accidental light exposure. Unroll and cut a neccesary length of this foil (under the UV safe yellow light) and carefully remove the inner protective plastic layer from it's inside curled surface. The best is to use a short piece od Scotch tape taped to its corner and peel it off and discard, to expose super thin bluish layer of this photosensitive foil. Carefully place this foil onto your brass, the peeled off surface down, making sure there are no air bubbles trapped in between. Do the same on the other side of your brass.
Place your brass/photoresist sandwich in a laminator and run it at least 2 times, back and forth. Check again for air bubbles - pierce them, if present, with a sharp point of exacto knife or a needle and run your plate through the laminator once again. Insert your plate/photoresist sandwich inside your transparencies pocket and finally, place this brass/photoresist plate in between two sheets of glass (quartz glass is best, obtained for example from an old copier or scanner) and clamp it tightly together. Place everything in your UV exposure lamp source and expose it on both sides for a predetermined time. This will transfer your artwork from the transparencies onto the brass - you should end up with a distinct black hardened outlines of your details on the photoresist attached to your brass. Remove this sandwich from your light source, unclamp both panes of quartz glass and remove the plate from the transparencies' pocket and store it somewhere in darkness until you are ready to etch.
 
Until now, these are the most important steps, demanding great precision and dexterity, good eyes and patience, because you were working under diminished light - a bug yellow light. The end result of your etching will depend on how well you have prepared your plate.
 
The actual process of etching is now just a matter of preparing your chemicals, pouring them into suitable containers, checking temperature of your etchant, removing  second outer protective layers from a photoresist foil and developing your plate + a final etching of it.
 
Everything on the specific chemicals, materials and where to obtain them from, and other details, you'll find in the above mentioned tutorial by Mr. Berger.
 
I used a special etching plastic tank Gene is talking about, where I suspended my plate vertically and etched it hunging there immersed in etchant. This tank will control and maintain the temperature of your etchant (with a built in heater) and will do all necessary agitating with an aquarium style bubbler. You just sit and wait.
 
Thomas
PS: Sorry for my less than perfect English - after 40 years of living in the US, it is still my 2nd language.    :-(
 
PHOTO ETCHING HOME MADE instructions.pdf

Hi Pat,
Thanks for your post.
To answer your questions, first of all, the home made photoetching process has a certain learning curve in it, if one has never done it before. There are several variables to tackle and adjust, depending on your chemicals, their concentrations, temperatures, thickness of your brass, your UV light source, and so on. There are no universal numbers, one has to figure them out through his/her trials and errors, because one uses different chemicals and different ligh sources. So, prepare for yourself adequate supplies of materials and arm yourself with plenty of time/patience. For first several trials to determine those variables, use small samples of your brass and chemicals, not to waiste them excessively. For sure, your first trial or two at least, will not turn out perfectly.  So, be patient and try again and again, until you'll arrive at good results. Write down your variables to be used later as your standards.
For most of your questions you'll find the answers in the above mentioned tutorial by Gene Berger, which is here:   http://geneberger-models.com/photo-etching/   Here I will only signal some points to watch.
I was using a rather thick brass plate = 0.01 inch (0,025 mm). For that thickness you'll have to etch it on both sides simultaneously to avoid excessive underetching (etchant creeping under the photoresist foil ruining details).
You have to prepare your artwork as perfectly as possible, using one of the graphic programs, Photoshop, Corel or Gimp, or similar. Make your drawings in large resolution, 900 dpi, if possible. Everything has to be either pitch black or completely transparent, no grey areas whatsoever. Make sure your drawings are in the proper scale (size) - hence you see a ruler in my artwork. After printing both transparencies i checked one final time to make sure details were in correct sizes. After you are done, make a mirror image copy of it - for your transparencies pocket (see further). Then copy it on laser transparencies using a laser copier with settings of biggest contrast and biggest resolution. The more perfect your artwork, the better will be your etched plate.
Once you have both transparencies mirror imaged, you have to create from them a pocket for your brass plate. Tape one transparency to a sheet of glass iluminated from underneath, with its matte side facing you. Tape the second transparency on top of the first, aligning carefully both, but this one with its dull side facing the first transparency. Carefully remove from glass pane both transparencies which are taped together along three edges, to form a pocket.
 
You have to keep in mind that, if you are using a photoresist foil, the process is similar to analog b/w photography (a negative film vs a positive paper principle). Your transparencies have to be in "negative" of what you want to etch. That means, everything you want to be etched away, has to be black and areas to be left intact, have to be transparent. If you are using a photosensitive spray Positive20 (popular in Europe), this has to be in reverse, what'll be etched away has to be transparent and what has to be left intact, must be black. The carefull allignment of both transparencies is critical for a sharp edges of etched plate.
Another critical variable is a super careful and detailed preparation of your brass plate - polishing and wet sanding with several gradations of fine sanpaper, until the surface is sparkling clean and shines like a mirror. Wear rubber gloves to avoid any grease spots from your fingertips. Do a final rinse of your plate with distilled water, which should run off the brass in sheets.
Now, under UV protective light (a yellow bug lightbulb is OK) you'll apply a layer of your photoresist to both surfaces of your plate . This comes in a roll, sort of like a Saran wrap, covered in a black protective plastic foil, to avoid accidental light exposure. Unroll and cut a neccesary length of this foil (under the UV safe yellow light) and carefully remove the inner protective plastic layer from it's inside curled surface. The best is to use a short piece od Scotch tape taped to its corner and peel it off and discard, to expose super thin bluish layer of this photosensitive foil. Carefully place this foil onto your brass, the peeled off surface down, making sure there are no air bubbles trapped in between. Do the same on the other side of your brass.
Place your brass/photoresist sandwich in a laminator and run it at least 2 times, back and forth. Check again for air bubbles - pierce them, if present, with a sharp point of exacto knife or a needle and run your plate through the laminator once again. Insert your plate/photoresist sandwich inside your transparencies pocket and finally, place this brass/photoresist plate in between two sheets of glass (quartz glass is best, obtained for example from an old copier or scanner) and clamp it tightly together. Place everything in your UV exposure lamp source and expose it on both sides for a predetermined time. This will transfer your artwork from the transparencies onto the brass - you should end up with a distinct black hardened outlines of your details on the photoresist attached to your brass. Remove this sandwich from your light source, unclamp both panes of quartz glass and remove the plate from the transparencies' pocket and store it somewhere in darkness until you are ready to etch.
 
Until now, these are the most important steps, demanding great precision and dexterity, good eyes and patience, because you were working under diminished light - a bug yellow light. The end result of your etching will depend on how well you have prepared your plate.
 
The actual process of etching is now just a matter of preparing your chemicals, pouring them into suitable containers, checking temperature of your etchant, removing  second outer protective layers from a photoresist foil and developing your plate + a final etching of it.
 
Everything on the specific chemicals, materials and where to obtain them from, and other details, you'll find in the above mentioned tutorial by Mr. Berger.
 
I used a special etching plastic tank Gene is talking about, where I suspended my plate vertically and etched it hunging there immersed in etchant. This tank will control and maintain the temperature of your etchant (with a built in heater) and will do all necessary agitating with an aquarium style bubbler. You just sit and wait.
 
Thomas
PS: Sorry for my less than perfect English - after 40 years of living in the US, it is still my 2nd language.    :-(
 
PHOTO ETCHING HOME MADE instructions.pdf

Hi fellow shipmodelers,
It has been a long while since my previous post - time spent on my attempts to photoetch at home, as well as  other home tasks, eg. staying alive and healthy recently, socially distancing myself, and such, but finally I have some constructive reporting to post now.
I closely followed the online tutorial on photoetching given by Mr. Gene Berger, which was suggested earlier on by one of the members. Many thanks for it to the Gentleman. I also had a very pleasant telephone conversation with Mr. Berger himself, where he gave me some extra tips.
 
Well, after many trials and errors and various changes into the exposure time and the concentrations of my chemicals, yesterday I finally managed to obtain an acceptable plate. It is not perfect, but it is good enough for my model (Boudriot's 74 guns in 1:48).   What I did is, first - I had to change the cheap developer from some generic Sodium Hydroxide I obtained somewhere online, into the one from Micromark, because my generic NaOH simply did not want to develop anything and subsequently my etchant could not etch anything. It turned out  to be a big lie rather than lye .   :-)   Waisted that way lots of time and material!
Also, I managed to pinpoint the best exposure time for my UV lamp I built earlier. It turned out to be about 90 - 120 seconds only! (45 to 60 secs on each side). The UV light in there really takes care of the photoresist quite quickly, as opposed to the ordinary incandescent light or unpredictable sunlight.
The first trial of a partial plate with the above settings - and the first time a modest success! Voila!!!
My second time - this time with the whole plate rather than its part only, turned out to be not so good. I found out, that the chemicals, both the Micromark developer and the etchant (ammonium persulfate - in my case) are rather unstable and quickly degrade, not just after the first process of etching, but even after a few days, being stored in plastic containers (bottles) and they produce unexpected and unacceptable results - partial, blotchy etching in places and overetching elsewhere.

So, yesterday I decided to prepare brand new chemicals and yet another new brass plate and start all over again. I warmed the etchant to 42 deg C and started the whole process after succesfully developing it. After a few minutes I noticed that the temperature of etchant in the tank was rising. Towards the end, when all elements were about etched, the temp was already 65 degrees C! I think that this was due to the size of my plate 4.5 x 10 in. - quite a big area of etching. This must be quite an exotermic reaction!
Anyway, to make the whole thing short - after 30 minutes of etching, the plate was done! See the attachments.
 I enclose two attachments, the first one shows my artwork I prepared on the Photoshop, and the second one - etched elements from yesterday, shows my parts after the etching. I cut them out with small snips and freed them from the rest of my plate and blackened them with Birchwood Casey - the one for brass/copper. Here I loosely placed them in the same manner as they are on my artwork - to compare both.
 
In conclusion, I have to say, that the entire process of photoetching at home is certainly doable, (though quite tricky), however one must prepare oneself for it beforehand. Firstly, obtain or build a suitable UV exposure lamp, get a laminator, get a few plastic containers for developer and water, get a good etching tank with temp control and a bubble agitator and all neccesary chemicals and photoresist.
Very critical to the entire process is to properly prepare the brass plate, to be as close to perfection as possible, shining like a mirror, free from any debris and grease from your fingertips. Use only distilled water for the entire process. And also the process of applying photoresist onto the plate is quite finicky. Observe exact UV exposure time! If you do everything properly, the rest is just patience - exposing your plate in the chemicals and waiting for the results.
I had lots of experience with an old fashioned B/W analog photography from my earlier, young years, but this process, although somewhat similar in principles, is more demanding and unforgiving. You have to be more exact throughout it, for any deviations will result in unexpected and undesireable results.

Hi fellow shipmodelers,
It has been a long while since my previous post - time spent on my attempts to photoetch at home, as well as  other home tasks, eg. staying alive and healthy recently, socially distancing myself, and such, but finally I have some constructive reporting to post now.
I closely followed the online tutorial on photoetching given by Mr. Gene Berger, which was suggested earlier on by one of the members. Many thanks for it to the Gentleman. I also had a very pleasant telephone conversation with Mr. Berger himself, where he gave me some extra tips.
 
Well, after many trials and errors and various changes into the exposure time and the concentrations of my chemicals, yesterday I finally managed to obtain an acceptable plate. It is not perfect, but it is good enough for my model (Boudriot's 74 guns in 1:48).   What I did is, first - I had to change the cheap developer from some generic Sodium Hydroxide I obtained somewhere online, into the one from Micromark, because my generic NaOH simply did not want to develop anything and subsequently my etchant could not etch anything. It turned out  to be a big lie rather than lye .   :-)   Waisted that way lots of time and material!
Also, I managed to pinpoint the best exposure time for my UV lamp I built earlier. It turned out to be about 90 - 120 seconds only! (45 to 60 secs on each side). The UV light in there really takes care of the photoresist quite quickly, as opposed to the ordinary incandescent light or unpredictable sunlight.
The first trial of a partial plate with the above settings - and the first time a modest success! Voila!!!
My second time - this time with the whole plate rather than its part only, turned out to be not so good. I found out, that the chemicals, both the Micromark developer and the etchant (ammonium persulfate - in my case) are rather unstable and quickly degrade, not just after the first process of etching, but even after a few days, being stored in plastic containers (bottles) and they produce unexpected and unacceptable results - partial, blotchy etching in places and overetching elsewhere.

So, yesterday I decided to prepare brand new chemicals and yet another new brass plate and start all over again. I warmed the etchant to 42 deg C and started the whole process after succesfully developing it. After a few minutes I noticed that the temperature of etchant in the tank was rising. Towards the end, when all elements were about etched, the temp was already 65 degrees C! I think that this was due to the size of my plate 4.5 x 10 in. - quite a big area of etching. This must be quite an exotermic reaction!
Anyway, to make the whole thing short - after 30 minutes of etching, the plate was done! See the attachments.
 I enclose two attachments, the first one shows my artwork I prepared on the Photoshop, and the second one - etched elements from yesterday, shows my parts after the etching. I cut them out with small snips and freed them from the rest of my plate and blackened them with Birchwood Casey - the one for brass/copper. Here I loosely placed them in the same manner as they are on my artwork - to compare both.
 
In conclusion, I have to say, that the entire process of photoetching at home is certainly doable, (though quite tricky), however one must prepare oneself for it beforehand. Firstly, obtain or build a suitable UV exposure lamp, get a laminator, get a few plastic containers for developer and water, get a good etching tank with temp control and a bubble agitator and all neccesary chemicals and photoresist.
Very critical to the entire process is to properly prepare the brass plate, to be as close to perfection as possible, shining like a mirror, free from any debris and grease from your fingertips. Use only distilled water for the entire process. And also the process of applying photoresist onto the plate is quite finicky. Observe exact UV exposure time! If you do everything properly, the rest is just patience - exposing your plate in the chemicals and waiting for the results.
I had lots of experience with an old fashioned B/W analog photography from my earlier, young years, but this process, although somewhat similar in principles, is more demanding and unforgiving. You have to be more exact throughout it, for any deviations will result in unexpected and undesireable results.

Hi fellow shipmodelers,
It has been a long while since my previous post - time spent on my attempts to photoetch at home, as well as  other home tasks, eg. staying alive and healthy recently, socially distancing myself, and such, but finally I have some constructive reporting to post now.
I closely followed the online tutorial on photoetching given by Mr. Gene Berger, which was suggested earlier on by one of the members. Many thanks for it to the Gentleman. I also had a very pleasant telephone conversation with Mr. Berger himself, where he gave me some extra tips.
 
Well, after many trials and errors and various changes into the exposure time and the concentrations of my chemicals, yesterday I finally managed to obtain an acceptable plate. It is not perfect, but it is good enough for my model (Boudriot's 74 guns in 1:48).   What I did is, first - I had to change the cheap developer from some generic Sodium Hydroxide I obtained somewhere online, into the one from Micromark, because my generic NaOH simply did not want to develop anything and subsequently my etchant could not etch anything. It turned out  to be a big lie rather than lye .   :-)   Waisted that way lots of time and material!
Also, I managed to pinpoint the best exposure time for my UV lamp I built earlier. It turned out to be about 90 - 120 seconds only! (45 to 60 secs on each side). The UV light in there really takes care of the photoresist quite quickly, as opposed to the ordinary incandescent light or unpredictable sunlight.
The first trial of a partial plate with the above settings - and the first time a modest success! Voila!!!
My second time - this time with the whole plate rather than its part only, turned out to be not so good. I found out, that the chemicals, both the Micromark developer and the etchant (ammonium persulfate - in my case) are rather unstable and quickly degrade, not just after the first process of etching, but even after a few days, being stored in plastic containers (bottles) and they produce unexpected and unacceptable results - partial, blotchy etching in places and overetching elsewhere.

So, yesterday I decided to prepare brand new chemicals and yet another new brass plate and start all over again. I warmed the etchant to 42 deg C and started the whole process after succesfully developing it. After a few minutes I noticed that the temperature of etchant in the tank was rising. Towards the end, when all elements were about etched, the temp was already 65 degrees C! I think that this was due to the size of my plate 4.5 x 10 in. - quite a big area of etching. This must be quite an exotermic reaction!
Anyway, to make the whole thing short - after 30 minutes of etching, the plate was done! See the attachments.
 I enclose two attachments, the first one shows my artwork I prepared on the Photoshop, and the second one - etched elements from yesterday, shows my parts after the etching. I cut them out with small snips and freed them from the rest of my plate and blackened them with Birchwood Casey - the one for brass/copper. Here I loosely placed them in the same manner as they are on my artwork - to compare both.
 
In conclusion, I have to say, that the entire process of photoetching at home is certainly doable, (though quite tricky), however one must prepare oneself for it beforehand. Firstly, obtain or build a suitable UV exposure lamp, get a laminator, get a few plastic containers for developer and water, get a good etching tank with temp control and a bubble agitator and all neccesary chemicals and photoresist.
Very critical to the entire process is to properly prepare the brass plate, to be as close to perfection as possible, shining like a mirror, free from any debris and grease from your fingertips. Use only distilled water for the entire process. And also the process of applying photoresist onto the plate is quite finicky. Observe exact UV exposure time! If you do everything properly, the rest is just patience - exposing your plate in the chemicals and waiting for the results.
I had lots of experience with an old fashioned B/W analog photography from my earlier, young years, but this process, although somewhat similar in principles, is more demanding and unforgiving. You have to be more exact throughout it, for any deviations will result in unexpected and undesireable results.

Hi fellow shipmodelers,
It has been a long while since my previous post - time spent on my attempts to photoetch at home, as well as  other home tasks, eg. staying alive and healthy recently, socially distancing myself, and such, but finally I have some constructive reporting to post now.
I closely followed the online tutorial on photoetching given by Mr. Gene Berger, which was suggested earlier on by one of the members. Many thanks for it to the Gentleman. I also had a very pleasant telephone conversation with Mr. Berger himself, where he gave me some extra tips.
 
Well, after many trials and errors and various changes into the exposure time and the concentrations of my chemicals, yesterday I finally managed to obtain an acceptable plate. It is not perfect, but it is good enough for my model (Boudriot's 74 guns in 1:48).   What I did is, first - I had to change the cheap developer from some generic Sodium Hydroxide I obtained somewhere online, into the one from Micromark, because my generic NaOH simply did not want to develop anything and subsequently my etchant could not etch anything. It turned out  to be a big lie rather than lye .   :-)   Waisted that way lots of time and material!
Also, I managed to pinpoint the best exposure time for my UV lamp I built earlier. It turned out to be about 90 - 120 seconds only! (45 to 60 secs on each side). The UV light in there really takes care of the photoresist quite quickly, as opposed to the ordinary incandescent light or unpredictable sunlight.
The first trial of a partial plate with the above settings - and the first time a modest success! Voila!!!
My second time - this time with the whole plate rather than its part only, turned out to be not so good. I found out, that the chemicals, both the Micromark developer and the etchant (ammonium persulfate - in my case) are rather unstable and quickly degrade, not just after the first process of etching, but even after a few days, being stored in plastic containers (bottles) and they produce unexpected and unacceptable results - partial, blotchy etching in places and overetching elsewhere.

So, yesterday I decided to prepare brand new chemicals and yet another new brass plate and start all over again. I warmed the etchant to 42 deg C and started the whole process after succesfully developing it. After a few minutes I noticed that the temperature of etchant in the tank was rising. Towards the end, when all elements were about etched, the temp was already 65 degrees C! I think that this was due to the size of my plate 4.5 x 10 in. - quite a big area of etching. This must be quite an exotermic reaction!
Anyway, to make the whole thing short - after 30 minutes of etching, the plate was done! See the attachments.
 I enclose two attachments, the first one shows my artwork I prepared on the Photoshop, and the second one - etched elements from yesterday, shows my parts after the etching. I cut them out with small snips and freed them from the rest of my plate and blackened them with Birchwood Casey - the one for brass/copper. Here I loosely placed them in the same manner as they are on my artwork - to compare both.
 
In conclusion, I have to say, that the entire process of photoetching at home is certainly doable, (though quite tricky), however one must prepare oneself for it beforehand. Firstly, obtain or build a suitable UV exposure lamp, get a laminator, get a few plastic containers for developer and water, get a good etching tank with temp control and a bubble agitator and all neccesary chemicals and photoresist.
Very critical to the entire process is to properly prepare the brass plate, to be as close to perfection as possible, shining like a mirror, free from any debris and grease from your fingertips. Use only distilled water for the entire process. And also the process of applying photoresist onto the plate is quite finicky. Observe exact UV exposure time! If you do everything properly, the rest is just patience - exposing your plate in the chemicals and waiting for the results.
I had lots of experience with an old fashioned B/W analog photography from my earlier, young years, but this process, although somewhat similar in principles, is more demanding and unforgiving. You have to be more exact throughout it, for any deviations will result in unexpected and undesireable results.

Mike,
You should have the possibility to change the white ballance in your camera as well. Set it to "incandescent" and, if it is necessary, furthrer tweak the ballance in post prod - if you shoot in RAW.
Also, if you can set your camera to aperture priority mode, select the smallest f. stop, for example f.22 and your camera will automatically choose appropriate exposure time . This might be some long time, a few seconds or so, but you said, you are using a tripod, so who cares, you are not chased anywhere and can wait... This small aperture will give you deep depth of focus, everything from close by to most distant details will be sharp (well,... almost, for in order to truly get EVERYTHING razor sharp, you have to use a technique called "focus stacking". But, I am sure you know about it already...)
Also, I found out that the best light for photographing models is using daytime light, outside, but in a cloudy day, not direct sunlight.
Admiring your modeling skills!!!   :-)
Thomas

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

There is a pretty good explanation on the anatomy and function of the elm tree pumps, as well as this so called "flooded cistern system" on pages 142 & 143 in Peter Goodwin's "The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War 1650-1850". I am attaching a scan of p. 143 here.
Also J. Boudriot talks about pumps in vol. 2 of his '74 gun ship", and even though those are French with small differences of their details, the principle is the same.
Regards,
Thomas

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

On p. 142 I scanned above, it is stated that the cyllinders were made of elm, which is very hard and moisture resistant wood, additionally reinforced with iron rings, and this simple construction was very robust, requiring little, if any maintenance, only occasional replacement or greasing of the boxes (valves), so it is quite unlikely that these barrels were susceptible to cracking/ breaking, unless being directly hit by the enemy's fire during a battle. The text also says that  the pump was capable to extract (suck) about 25 gallons of water per minute. I imagine, that if the barrel was cracked/broken, similar amount of water would rush into the bilges. Considering the size of the hull, this wouldn't be so much - after all, there were other pumps onboard to use...
Jean Boudriot says that in French vessels, the working part of this barrel was made from a bronze pipe, only upper and lower ends of the pump were made of elm. As we know, bronze is quite strong, unlikely to crack or corrode. It is used even nowadays for plumbing in certain countries, e.g. Germany...
 
I fully agree with you all, that the life onboard those vessels was very dangerous (not even considering loosing one's life during a battle, where opposing forces were desperatly trying to kill each other!). Even after all these years since then and numerous improvements, it is still one of the most dangerous occupations today!
 
BTW, I found out in B. Lavery's book an illustration, showing a combo-elm pump, which allowed drawing water from both sources, either an inner cistern or directly from the sea. Interesting...
 
Stay safe and healthy,
 
Thomas

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

OK Bluto, here is the previous page nr. 142 from the above mentioned book. This should give you further explanations to your questions.
 
Not being any expert on pumps, I think that the water let inside the hull through those horizontal pipes from the openings in the bulwarks below the waterline, was directed into the watertight cistern, and from there it was sucked up, onto the decks by means of the elm tree pumps, to be used for cleaning the decks and/or for extinguishing fires, or such.  An alternative was to draw water directly from the sea, without this cistern - look on the pic 5/14.
The stale water in the bilges was removed rather by the chain pumps - being more powerful than the elm tree pumps.
 
(also, in the book "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815" by Brian Lavery, there is an entire chapter (13 pages!) devoted just to pumps. If you read it, you'be an expert on the topic, for sure!)    :-)

There is a pretty good explanation on the anatomy and function of the elm tree pumps, as well as this so called "flooded cistern system" on pages 142 & 143 in Peter Goodwin's "The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War 1650-1850". I am attaching a scan of p. 143 here.
Also J. Boudriot talks about pumps in vol. 2 of his '74 gun ship", and even though those are French with small differences of their details, the principle is the same.
Regards,
Thomas

There is a pretty good explanation on the anatomy and function of the elm tree pumps, as well as this so called "flooded cistern system" on pages 142 & 143 in Peter Goodwin's "The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War 1650-1850". I am attaching a scan of p. 143 here.
Also J. Boudriot talks about pumps in vol. 2 of his '74 gun ship", and even though those are French with small differences of their details, the principle is the same.
Regards,
Thomas

There is a pretty good explanation on the anatomy and function of the elm tree pumps, as well as this so called "flooded cistern system" on pages 142 & 143 in Peter Goodwin's "The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War 1650-1850". I am attaching a scan of p. 143 here.
Also J. Boudriot talks about pumps in vol. 2 of his '74 gun ship", and even though those are French with small differences of their details, the principle is the same.
Regards,
Thomas

If you can locate a medical needle of appropriate (to your scale) thickness or other steel tubing, cut off its end and sharpen the edge. Press and twist it into the decking to obtain small circles - this will give you great looking simulations of your treenails.

If you can locate a medical needle of appropriate (to your scale) thickness or other steel tubing, cut off its end and sharpen the edge. Press and twist it into the decking to obtain small circles - this will give you great looking simulations of your treenails.