Tacet

Well, it's a matter of degree so there can be no absolute answer. If you flatten the single domestic, it is going to subsequently have a greater rater of charge than its series friend, but any more than a single flat battery on a 12v system? But assuming the domestic and starter batteries are only paralleled when the alternator is charging, the drop in voltage on the single domestic is not going to be that great. If you had a VSR, would it not prevent the domestic being caned too hard? (honest question). If you were that bothered, you could rotate the domestic battery so each had its turn being paralleled with the starter.

OK - but it is much simpler than the other suggestion of 24v inverters powering 12v battery charges. If the only real problem is with balancing the draw on the batteries, the power drawn by topping-up the starter will usually only be a few ah per day. Gibbo did some calculations showing how differing length links/resistances on parallel batteries caused some to draw more current than others. But as he acknowledged, he did not allow for the batteries equalizing voltages (and therefore SoC) when not much else was happening current-wise. I was never greatly convinced it was a real-world issue any more than say, some batteries might be better cooled by being further from the engine or the difference between middle and end batteries in a closely packed bank. Years ago a friend had a Transit van with a York engine, which were notoriously difficult to start. So, amongst other fixes, a second battery was added in parallel. When he went camping (several tents.....) the batteries were connected in series to run a 24v system on a -12v - 0v - +12v arrangement using round pin 15a and 5a plugs depending on whether it was 12v or 24v at that point. He tied a label on the steering wheel to remind him to change back to parallel and, as far as I know, never discovered what happened when you put 24v to the van's electrics.

I am puzzled as to why my betters are puzzled by the difficulties in charging a 12v (starter) battery from a 24v alternator/domestic system. Could you not just put the starter battery in parallel with one of the two batteries making up the 24v (i.e. centre tap)? A switch or gizmo in the connection could prevent the domestic side from draining the starter battery. I am not, of course, saying this is how the OPs boat is wired - just asking if it can't be done quite simply.

A pedant writes: I think the colder the air, the greater the mass (not volume) that is sucked in. Something to do with moles too. Presumably, in theory at least, the carb needs tweaking to allow more petrol to match the more air. What do they do on F1 cars? Do they close the choke or raise the cold start needle in its jet?

There are two Ls in intelligent.

Removing the big brass cap on the manifold can be tricky. When I tried, with a 3/4" drive socket and some extra leverage, it got to the point where I thought there was a chance of tearing it out of the aluminium. So I gave it up. It does seem to form a local high point that could trap air. I considered drilling and tapping the cap to expel it - if not as a filling point. But in the vent, it didn't cause any problems so either volume of trapped air was small or it was swept away when the water pump was running.

We have a microwave oven specialist, conveniently only a couple of miles away. Less conveniently, the quote for fixing it was £1,600.

The short strip of metal on a (usually broken) chain, used to jamb the rack and pinion is sorely missed. There are a few examples remaining including, I think, on the Rochdale Nine. Its replacement, when lost, was often the Greasy Stone that could be found close by. If you place it in the pinion correctly, it will conveniently fall out on raising the paddle a half-turn before lowering it.

That is one flight I would dearly like to do (or have done). John Seymour's Voyage into England recounts the last passage and since reading it in the early 1970's, it has been on my mind. The proposed restoration would be nice - but the Runcorn and Western Canal, or its equivalent, would need to be in place for regular use to be made.

That would be the price - and not the market price. Economists sometimes use "market price" in relation to a commodity that is widely available - and traded accordingly. But when you are dealing with a relatively unique product, such as real estate or used boats, there is "price" - which is a post-event fact and "market value" - which is an estimate I agree - neither party can determine the price alone. You said a Market Price is set & achieved solely by the buyer - which I disputed. I hereby offer £100 for the freehold interest in your house. But as a potential buyer, I need your agreement before that becomes the price. The price is not set & achieved solely by the buyer. Or the seller.

It does depend on one's definitions - but the "market value" is not affected by the broker or its fees, but it does assume proper marketing which may, in some circumstance, require the use of a broker with its associated fees I don't see any real use of "Market Price" - if it's an estimate (how much would have been achieved if I had had/not used a broker...?) - you are back to MV - possibly with some additional special assumptions. But the Price can be affected by the marketing arrangements - e.g. you may well find someone to pay more if the asset is properly marketed. The actual cost of that marketing does not add to the price - if you are lucky enough to have a brother that is a broker and prepared to market widely at no cost to you, it won't change the price. If you agree to pay the broker an excessive fee, it won't change the price. There is a much wider, more subtle issue as to whether the costs of entering and exiting an asset class bears on its MV (and price) - but that is not what is being discussed So, to summarise: The market value assumes proper marketing. Just what that requires will vary - but it won't add to the value - because it is assumed. If you don't market properly (perhaps to save fees) - it is at least liable to affect the price. Quite whether the affect on price will equate to the saved fees is a separate question. On a separate note, it is usual in the investment market to allow for purchaser's costs. If a 10% yield is expected on a property that brings in £10,000 pa in perpetuity, the MV might be only £95,000 as the purchaser will incur, say, say £5,000 in various costs. When analysing the eventual price in order to identify market behaviour, one needs to add back the £5,000 to the reported £95,000 deal - otherwise one over-estimates the yield. But this relates to the costs incurred by a purchaser - not those of the seller.

Yes - "market value", as defined is an estimate. It has to be, if you think about it. "Market Price" has no recognized, professional definition so it cannot be discussed too dogmatically. But, in the manner you are using it, you may well mean just "price". Either way, it is not solely determined by the buyer - the seller is likely to have a view too as well as the rest of the potential market to whom the seller might dispose. In your final line, replacing "price" with "value" "It could be argued that the market price value is what two potential buyers value it at, but that the final purchaser has actually paid 'one-bid' over the market price value to secure the item." would be better. The "price" more sensibly relates to what is achieved, rather than an estimate of what might/should be achieved - which is closer to value. There are good reasons why one party may pay a price in excess of its market value. For example, the asset has synergistic value which is contrary to the Arm's-length assumption of market value. Or the buyer had not acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. If an asset achieves a price in excess of its "market value" strictly under the terms of the hypothesis defined by "market value" , the market value is shown to be an inaccurate estimate.

I never sell houses in my course of business. A formal valuation has to refer to a recognised definition - most commonly Market Value, as defined and is usually part of a lengthy report extending maybe 30 sides of A4 (at commensurate expense) ; commercial lending, tax or company accounts are common reasons for needing a formal valuation, There are some exceptions excusing the use of formal valuations - and giving a guide in the course of an Agency instruction is one of them. So, when someone on Homes under the Hammer says that a house might achieve £300,000 - that is not a valuation, in my view although others will see it that way. The starting point for what you will be required to pay will be in the contract with your agent. But the Estate Agents Act (see s18) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/38/section/18 deals with some aspects. And if the agent is RICS registered, the Practice Statement applies https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/real-estate/uk-residential-real-estate-agency-6th-edition-rics.pdf

People are usually easier than dustbins. Stand them about where the ballast will go, and you will get a reasonable idea, assuming they will each disclose their weight. In they are initially reticent, add two stone.

The issue at stake is whether the costs of arranging a sale are, in fact, borne by the purchaser or vendor. The largest cost or not usually being a broker's commission, but the principle includes placing a private ad or making a few phone calls. Market Value is defined by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and International Valuation Standards Committee) as: ‘the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.’ Whilst it is an estimate, the figure does not change depending on who or how it is marketed because it is assumed to be after proper marketing. So a boat may have a Market Value £50,000. This requires proper marketing which we will take, for the moment, as being achieved by placing with a good broker who charges £3,000. From the vendor's perspective, the £3,000 might include a free mooring, less hassle in viewing and travel and no other costs etc. Say, worth £1,500 to him or her. And, he feels that that he will get a better price as the purchaser may prefer to buy from a broker - viewings are easier, choice of boats, feeling of confidence over buying off-the-bank and awareness of probable competition from other buyers. If the boat had not been properly marketed, it might only achieve £48,000. Note this does not change the Market Value - as that assumes proper marketing, not a chance meeting with a bloke in a pub. So, in this example, the purchaser feels it will be £500 better off by using a broker. Now there will be some people who consider they can undertake proper marketing themselves at little expense – and believe that a purchaser will not be bothered by whether there is a broker involved (or at least, not to sufficient extent). That’s why some people use brokers – and others do not. In practice, what comprises proper marketing will vary. Using a broker to sell a tatty canoe will probably achieve little. And maybe an historic boat is best advertised amongst a smaller circle. But also maybe a reasonably conventional narrow boat is best advertised quite widely and through a broker. You decide.