Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/07/20 in all areas

  1. and making over 20 posts on this thread. [snigger]
    4 points
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  3. I'll admit that I am someone who can't afford to live in a house and that's partly why I live on a boat. At the end of the day the license fee is ludicrously cheap when compared to things like basic services to a house (water, refuse, sewerage). I in no way want to drive people off the waterways, and I resent that this is the argument against boaters paying their way. What I want is for the canals to still exist and be navigable in 50 years time. That requires a LOT more money. So who should pay for it? Why not the people who directly benefit? Why should what is still primarily a hobby for the middle class be paid for out of tax money instead of the NHS, emergency services, social welfare? This, exactly this. As far as I can tell, CaRT doesn't need us at all? CaRT is subsidising us and would be better off if there were no boaters. That's the essential point that seems to be lost...
    3 points
  4. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  6. Let me just check that I've understood the argument against CaRT increasing the annual license fee to pay for much-needed canal maintenance... -- CaRT doesn't spend enough on canal maintenance and hasn't for many years -- this is causing the system to deteriorate and we don't want this to continue (or get worse) -- we like paying a tiny amount to cruise/live on the canals just like we have for many years, it's a really cheap way to live innit -- we don't want to pay more 'cos it's not fair and some people couldn't afford it (and/or don't want to / can't ask welfare to pay) -- so somebody else (e.g. walkers, cyclists, Joe Public) should cough up, not us, even though we get by far the biggest benefit from the canals Is that right? Really? Boat license fees are currently in the region of £1000 which is £20 a week. To increase the overall CRT budget by 25% (£50M) -- probably what is needed make a big enough difference to fix the problem -- it would need to increase to about £2500 which is £50 a week. For what this gets you and compared to the other costs of buying/running a boat -- and certainly compared to the costs of living on land -- this is an increase from ludicrously cheap to very cheap... CaRT wouldn't be able to make such a big change overnight anyway because they don't have the maintenance staff or equipment to suddenly use up another £50M a year, this would have to be built up over maybe 5 years -- and it would be better value to do this in-house instead of subcontracting it, that way money isn't creamed off to service company shareholders and CaRT build up a skilled workforce who maybe even care about the canals a bit. So the fee might go up by about £300 a year for 5 years, by which time we could have a properly maintained canal system that works in the long term. This increase is gradual enough that it wouldn't immediately throw people out onto the street, and if it makes them change their lifestyle it gives enough time to do it. Could anybody who really loves the canals -- presumably, most people on this forum -- honestly object to this? ?
    3 points
  7. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  8. I think your suggestion regarding my information request shows an abysmal understanding of legislation. However, if you want to make an information request about 'what happened to the Floater'? ' - you can do so at - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/canal_river_trust Please keep us informed of your progress ...
    3 points
  9. Yes if you want 10A from 3.3v you need 0.33 ohms. And the power dissipation will be v x I, ie 33 watts. Of course you probably want it to work at max charging voltage ie 3.7 volts so 0.33 ohms would give you about 11A and 41w something like this would do : https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/panel-mount-fixed-resistors/0160887/ but note that the 50w rating is only when the resistor is mounted on a large heatsink using thermal paste to make a good thermal connection. And at maximum power dissipation even with a heatsink it can reach 200C which is definitely ouch territory!
    2 points
  10. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  11. I would have thought that if the cell was at 3.9v it was probably above 95% but I guess it depends on the charge current at the time. There is no particular issue with having the batteries near 100% SoC in the short term, it’s just not good for them to be kept at 100% for days and weeks. So no, I can’t see any need to discharge the whole bank especially as you’ve already taken out 25Ah. I think at this time of the year when nights (and hence energy required for lighting etc) are short and solar is plentiful there is no point in trying to cram the batteries full. Once you have top balanced, that is. If you are operating between say 100% and 50%, that is sub optimal in the long term and you would be better to operate in the 80% to 30% range. In winter when nights are long and sunny days are rare, it would make more sense to fully charge the batteries on an opportune basis (ie when It’s a sunny day, or you are cruising).
    2 points
  12. The motor cruiser Margoletta nearly swamped Mrs Barrable and her pug dog William whilst she was rowing her little tender up Horning reach.
    2 points
  13. You are saying that C&RT need people who cannot pay a fair price for the services they use ? C&RT need more people who can 'pay their way' not those that view the system as 'cheap living' and a longitudinal housing estate.
    2 points
  14. I thought it would be 'nein'!
    2 points
  15. Well, not if it jabbed him in both eyes anyway!
    2 points
  16. Do boaters use the locks on the K&A ?
    2 points
  17. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  18. If two Potatoes can’t see eye to eye and wanna go at each other half baked then hopefully they’ll get the roasting they deserve. It’s the other spuds that could get mashed in their wake I feel sorry for. Ha, that revives an old story.
    2 points
  19. Yes they'd have to 'fess up -- but it's blindingly obvious that the Friends income stream has turned out to be pie-in-the-sky, so I can't see how they can avoid that. Can you explain the "non-operational assets" comment? In order to justify a big increase in the license fee they'd have to explain why they needed it, and since the only justifiable reason would be to maintain/improve the system they'd have to admit that the current funding was insufficient to keep it in good condition. Since this would be the whole point of doing it, they would have to admit this as a necessary step to getting the increased funding. It's becoming increasingly obvious that CaRT have to do *something* drastic to keep the canal system in good order, and anyone objecting to an increase in the license fee should consider the other options they might consider to balance the books -- things like closing down parts of the system, selling parts off to the private sector (who would then charge boats for access/mooring like the Bridgewater does), starting to charge (a lot!) for things like water points and sewage/refuse disposal. Most reasonable people might say that a higher license fee is by far the best option... ?
    2 points
  20. All good but that 15.2V is a bit (lot) high. If you intend to let them go to 100% (I only do this to balance them and reset the BMV sync) then I woul go a lot lower with the BMV top voltage. If you are charging at 30-40A max then I would be in the low 14.* V. Mine was set to 13.9V for 80% but that had around 0.2V drop in the line so was really 14.1V. It all depends on what the BMV is going to do when it hits that voltage limit. I started my balancing by taking power from an individual cell rather than charging it. RIg up a simple circuit with high wattage wire wound resistors - nice and cheap. I did then buy a lab power supply that does 8A at 3.6V but only ever used it once.
    2 points
  21. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  22. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  23. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  24. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  25. If there are then yes, however if not then no. I imagined Athy was attempting to gently ease us all towards recognising the topic of this thread, as it was hovering around English Language which didn't really match the title "Boater found dead" very closely. Personally I am less interested in the passing of an apparent misery than I am in English Language study. I was a teacher of English as a foreign language in Spain during the 70s. However as your preference is to ignore thread titles in favour of the direction conversation takes them. I'm happy to point out that you have omitted a suitable verb after your use of the conditional, auxiliary verb should. Also you're lacking one of these ? Please have revised version on my desk no later than 8.30am tomorrow morning.
    2 points
  26. Just posted on the BCNS Facebook page: https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-rope-maker-1976-online?fbclid=IwAR0QgydcUImVff3Tx9L7zLBhrd2XRANCTvO5YWERhoBwtqk9q8FDv415iwI Alf was a well known figure on the BCN in the '70's and '80's.
    1 point
  27. I suspect you are only looking at this subject from your own situation and circumstances ...........as I am. ...........but It seems our circumstances are completely different.
    1 point
  28. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  29. At 3.9V, that cell was 100% charged and you MUST stop charging. As Nick says, it is voltage under charge you are interested in at the top end not rested voltage. I dont think your 12V heating element will work. You need to get something that will take 10A or so out at 3.3V. Use Ohms law to work out that resistance of the circuit needed. If you have an element that heats at 12V, then it isnt going to heat at 3.3V. Check it on ohms law. My 'resistor array' is in storage for the next few weeks. We took all our lithium gear off our old boat when we sold it and all the kit is in storage. We are currently on our new boat on a delivery trip back to our 'base' (for the next 2 weeks) using LA's to make sure everything is working so we have a working 'guarantee' (new boat). ....so I cant remember what the resistor values are and cant show you a photo. I have had a quick look at the laptop and think I was using a 0.3Ohm/60W resistor so 3* 1 Ohm 20W resistors in parallel, mounted on a heat sink - it gets hot. It may have been 6 * 2Ohm 10W resistors in parallel. I am sure Nick can put you straight on resistor values.
    1 point
  30. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  31. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  32. Boat hire worldwide is pretty much like that, but it tends to be limited as to the type of boat you can hire, hiring a £250k yacht or £3m motor cruiser tend to require some qualifications, whilst hiring a little putt-putt in the Greek Islands doesn't.
    1 point
  33. Because being different the way they are now doesn't work, there isn't enough money to maintain the system. Where do you suggest this ought to come from?
    1 point
  34. I already posted a screenshot of the requirements and it was only 3 posts ago. A minimum of two people on board and a working VHF radio. Edit to add : I'm sure the next question will be "what is a small vessel" Answer "a small vessel is under 12 metres in length" There is also a requirement for Colreg compliant Navigation lights if operating in the hours of darkness or in bad visibility.
    1 point
  35. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  36. And if things like the residential schemes make more profit for CaRT to invest back into the canals, what's the problem? It's not an either/or, CaRT can raise money to invest in things like property which bring in a return from sources which wouldn't directly fund maintenance. So long as they do this sensibly it provides more revenue for the canals, not less. It's only if they do what some councils have done and borrow vast amounts to fund speculative developments and office space that it could all go wrong, but I don't see any evidence of them doing this.
    1 point
  37. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  38. Jus a small example from their own accounts package - they are becoming a big player in building residential properties : Creating high-quality waterside spaces During the year, we continued to push forward our ambitions to create high-quality places next to our waterways to encourage more people to use and enjoy these spaces with significant achievements on several major development schemes: • Completion of Phase 2 of the Brentford residential scheme in West London, part of our Waterside Places joint venture with Muse Developments • Completion of our residential scheme at Bow Wharf, in East London, and new industrial units at Tyseley, Birmingham, part of our H2O Urban joint venture with bloc • Start of work on a residential scheme at Hale Wharf, East London, by Waterside Places • H2O Urban commenced work on a hotel/industrial development at Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire • Delivery of the first houses as part of our joint venture with Birmingham City Council, Urban Splash and Places for People to transform Icknield Port Loop, a rundown former industrial site • Start of the restoration of the Roundhouse in Birmingham, in partnership with the National Trust We were also pleased to receive a number of planning permissions to continue our transformation work including at Brentford (Phase 3), Bulbourne Yard and at Finsley Gate Wharf in Burnley which will deliver a leisure, education and community attraction, largely funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund.
    1 point
  39. If the tank has plenty of internal baffles I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
    1 point
  40. IMHO all outboards and outdrives installed in inland boats should have a good rudder attached. It is ridiculous that a boat cannot be steered as it drifts into the bank with the gears in neutral. With a lightweight yogurt pot I would always aim to be in neutral for the final 5 to 10 metres unless there is a crosswind.
    1 point
  41. On the Lateral Loire canal near Sancerre and one of our favourite cafes in France. Great lunch if you can get a seat also good place for wine.
    1 point
  42. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  43. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  44. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  45. Not true as you have seen fit to join in ...
    1 point
  46. Missed you by some twenty hours Mike. Can thoroughly recommend the Pig Place. Really pleasant people who work hard to achieve an enjoyable, unusual experience. Social distancing is high on the agenda. Hook Norton beers are palatable. Hot food available and a farm shop selling amongst other items that you’d expect, Pig that has become Pork.
    1 point
  47. No, was banned for having fenders down when passing the FoxesBoys Vloggers.
    1 point
  48. Fair enough, but those users don't need the canals to be navigable. Having taken a walk along the abandoned Buckingham and Wendover arms of the GU recently, I'm not sure that these are significantly worse places for walking and cycling being that they haven't been navigable in years. I would hazard that the largest costs are in maintaining locks and keeping them deep enough to navigate? Sure it is harsh, but we're dealing with a harsh reality here. Is it harsher to let the canals disappear entirely or to have the people who use them pay for their upkeep? I think those who have paid for a boat would rather that the canals stay open than for their investment to become completely useless! To me it's far harsher to suggest that people who DON'T navigate the canals be forced to pay for the upkeep. It doesn't have to be sudden. My understanding of the problem from this thread is not that we need to find 200 million right now or the canals will disappear. Rather, there is a growing backlog of maintenance that needs doing - and presumably this could be done over the next several years. I suggested 300 GBP extra per year per boat over the next 20 years to raise 200M. For me that would represent a one-time 30% increase. It might be better to increase the license by 10% YoY until we get to that number. Starting with the 21M number then a 10% increase per year would mean that we'd raise 200M extra in 11 years. Also I don't know that 200M is the number we need - I'm just trying to make the leap from "oh no it's too much money the canals are doomed" to practically how can we make the canals sustainable? I don't blame those people, if anything I blame the govmt for subsidising the waterways for so long so as to have created a false expectation that the canals are cheap to run. But I also don't see the argument that just because something has been historically cheap that we should continue to socialise the cost. I too find that a really weird argument. I think a gradual increase to a point that navigation pays for itself is good for the network, it's good for the public, and it's ultimately good for future generations of boaters who will still have have canals to enjoy. It's not fair to use public funds to support leisure navigation, and if someone wants to argue that it's to support cheap housing, then let's redirect those funds to support actually cheap housing. It's a lot more fair than having those who don't drive pay for the roads. And I'd argue this is much more true of boating, since even though I don't drive, I benefit from trucks being able to deliver goods on the road, and emergency services being able to access, etc. Those who aren't boating don't derive any value from keeping the canals navigable, so it's very unfair to expect non-boaters to pay for the canals. That's essentially my point. Why should non-navigators pay for navigators to enjoy the canals? "because they always have" is hardly a fair answer. I don't think anyone is arguing that we need 200M per year are they? Is this really true? How are they going to be able to achieve this - charging points? How could you run a boat in the winter without diesel/petrol? Agreed - as a newbie I was absolutely staggered at how cheap this is. My license fee is worth it just for the refuse, water and elsan alone. I can't even fathom the cost of replacing locks, maintaining the banks, dredging and keeping the canals full of water. It's mindblowing to me that the license fees are so cheap. But someone still has to pay. If not the wealthy, then the poor. Why is it fair for the poor to pay for something they don't use?
    1 point
  49. Just been on the news that three pubs that opened at the weekend are closed again due to customers testing positive for covid 19. I won't be using a pub for the foreseeable.
    1 point
  50. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.