Dipped Swages, again...
 

I believe it was decided that swages that are dipped in goo, preferably a polyurethane or hybrid sealat to help it adhear to the wire strands to keep salt water and everthig else out...last longer. There is one more problem we see.
It takes a lot longer to assemble and swage wires with nasty sticky goo that has to be cleaned off each swage or risk getting it everywhere. Yuck! , expensive too.
What about smothering the wire end in lanacote before swaging ?
It is alot easier to clean up and can be just whiped off the dies and wire/swage with a dry rag at the and no thinners are needed cause the left over slight grease film isn't going to hurt anything, it even seems makes the swages shiny and smooth.
Any objections to that practice ? Will the lanocote run out on hot days ?

Always trying to learn ...
Brian

Please Don't Dip!
 

Brian,
If lasting longer with a reduced safety margin works for you-go for it! Not sure who decided dipping was okay, but do some pull testing before you take this one to the bank! That slight film seriously compromises the swage's ability to hold the metal-to-metal bond that is doing the holding.
Just stating facts from pull testing that I have been involved with during my career. I would rather have to replace rigging quicker than sacrifice 50% or more of the designed safety factor in my(or a customer's) rigging.

On EVERY test where sealant was applied, the swage NEVER held to breaking load of the wire. The wire should always be the weakest part of the assembly.

If corrosion is that much of a factor-switch 'em out to swageless.

Goo on rigging wire
 

My expertise is with electronics and electrical systems, not rigging. Regardless, I have taken Brion's advice to heart many times without regret. I've been dealing with problems of corrosion and rigging wire since '80 and have noticed that there is a problem common to printed circuit boards and rigging. People who apply various goos to either one do not, or cannot, commonly keep the applied area free from the intrusion of dirt and dust.

All goos retain dirt at the interface between where the goo ends and the rigging wire (and more) which is the site for the beginning of corrosion due to the interaction of the chemicals in the dirt and the absence of oxygen. SSB installations which connect various wires to the rigging are a particular problem in this instance and great care must be made when making such connections to prevent the collection of dirt. I have recommended that such connections be made by the use of solderless watertight terminals between the uplead and a pendant rigging wire exactly compatible with the alloy to which the pendant is attached. The pendant gets served to the rigging wire again using compatible serving wire. Leaving everything clean, one can inspect the whole junction and wash it frequently. With the application of goos, one cannot discern the integrity of the rigging wire. In general, there is no chemical reason to expect a "protectant" to microscopically adhere to stainless surfaces. Vibration, wind, and water can affect dirt particles to undermine the interface between the goo and the stainless entraping the particles which remain to do damage.

There is a myth amongst cruising sailers that the application of WD-40 will clean and protect electronic circuit boards. In truth, the chemicals of WD-40, and others, invade the package leads of integrated circuits which changes the resistive values between leads, especilly when dirt is trapped. Often they are rendered permanently irreparable over time due to the same effect that rigging wire gets damaged. One exception to this, in my experience, is the use of Corrosion Block liquid to clean salt intruded circuit boards. The Corrosion Block is the only one that has actually enabled my to dissolve (24 hours) an affected board, which otherwise would no operate, and return it to service AFTER thouroughly cleaning off the chemical with high grade alcohol so that the Corrosion Block not trap dirt.

It would seem logical that if there were a "goo" appropriate for use with swaging rigging wire it would be made by a company such as Permatex or Locktite. Comments?

Info from Brooks Jones of Sailing Services
 

I asked Brooks to give his opinion. Brooks has been swaging wire all over the Caribbean and beyond for 30+ years. They use BoatLife on every swage and Sta Lok.

Bob

==========================

We have been using Life Caulk- Boat Life brand polysulfide with no
problems. We also feel that the STA-LOK terminals design lends itself to a
very simple "potting" with the bedding compound. We also put Locktite
thread locking fluid on the threads at initial assembly to prevent any
chance of galling and to keep the terminal together. We are using the same
Locktite as used in the Harken roller furling assemblies on the torque links
for the foils but the blue version will also work. See complete directions
on our web site.

We also have pull tested Sta-Lok and swage terminals and the wire broke
first at the exit from the terminal at above the rated breaking strength of
the wire in all cases.

I would be interested in more details from the " no-goo camp" on "their
goo test" - what kind of goo? etc.

I can say that we have had rigging tested to failure in real life conditions
like when a boat mast hits a bridge. The wires will break but the wire does not pull out if properly swaged or assembled with a STA-LOK.

We have seen wire that has pulled out of swage terminals but in those cases
the swage terminal was not swaged to the proper dimensions.

Only exceptions to this statement would be in some cases with Dyform wire
and swage terminals. We swage with the addition of special "diamond dust"
and "thread sealant compound" as directed by Navtec. We do like to use
the STA-LOK terminal on Dyform wire.

I think it is important to the long term life of the swage terminal to use a
rotary swaging machine and type 316 SS wire and terminals and swage to the
specified after swage diameter so as to obtain long term corrosion
resistance.

Rotary swaging machine leaves a smooth and straight shank which is
noticeably different than results from other types of swage terminals. The
advantage here is the long term resistance to corrosion and I am sure that
the other types of swaging will develops the strength of the wire if
properly done.

Regards, Brooks Paul Jones from Sailing Services, Inc.

Quantify
 

Hello all,
On the one hand we have some reports, so far unsubstantiated, that adding "goo" to wires pre-swaging will compromise security, or corrosion protection, or both. On the other hand we have decades of experience and actual pull test data -- I'll dig a few out of my files, and will see if Brooks will do likewise. In addition, it seems clear that Sta-loks and the like, goo-filled or not, impose less compression on the wire yarns, over less area, than swages do, and they do not pull out. So how could sealant compromise properly-made swages?
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

Great, yes I anyway have been thourougly convinced that something must be applied to every wire terminal to attempt to seal out corrosives.
I understand that Sailing Services practices this. I worked for a while at a yard near sailing services and we often used them to supply us with rigging cable with swaged ends. My own boat was rigged with cables made up by Sailing Services. I picked up the practice of gooing my swages as I was taught that made them last longer, and didn't seem to break. When the question was raised here I was looking for first hand advice on what I should be doing when I supply cables now. Therfore I am very tempted to use a polyurethane adhesive sealant inside all my terminals . ( I a number of times have been told and/or read that polysulfides were not as water proof or adhesive as polyurethane, and polyurethane has been working well for me...anyway) . My only hang up is the mess. perhaps a method is used to calibrate the amount of sealant and be sure to apply is from the very top of the swage. I am wondering if Lanacote would be a suitable substitute and if anybody has any expirience with that directly , or advice on how they feel it will do the job, because it is alot easier to clean up and keep neet with a bit of grease, as opposed to goo !

Thanks for all the great help here.
Brian

Dipping-not tobacco-
 

We operate two rotary swagers and a hydroformer (hybrid rotary swager) and have spoken at length with Torrington and Fenn - the manufacturers of these machines. They will not come to the plate one way or another.

However, we made up a 1/2 eye terminal and sacraficed it. Cutting the terminal in two with a hydro cutter to avoid any distortion, one would be hard pressed to see where the terminal began and where the wire ended. It looked like a piece of Nitronic 50 instead of 1x19


Okay, my 2 cents.