Tacet

As an aside, that relates to the EU style RCD rather than the Brexit RCR. But your long promoted assertion has been the reverse. The above indicates (as no one has doubted) that meeting the ISOs is deemed to achieve compliance with the RCD. However, it does not say that one must reach equivalent standards to the ISOs to comply with the RCD/RCR. Your extract says that if you don't meet ISO standards, you need to comply with the legislative requirements i.e RCR Essential Requirements - which is pretty obvious. Your position has been, for example, that a fuel tank inspection hatch, an insulated return to the horn and 1mm minimum wall thickness gas pipes are all necessary to comply with the RCR. None of these are mentioned anywhere in the RCR - but are (so you say) required to meet ISO standards and so are also mandatory for the RCR. Others say that complying with the RCR is sufficient to comply with the err....RCR. So to clarify your current thinking, is a fuel tank inspection hatch essential to comply with the RCR? The question is not whether having a hatch is good practice nor whether such a hatch is somehow contrary to the RCR.

Why has this injustice not been mentioned before now?

No application of Boyle's law in this context. Boyle's law relates to volume and pressure of gases at a constant temperature. If you draw off gas from an LPG cylinder it will indeed cool due to the latent heat of vaporisation. And the boiling point and pressure decrease with temperature. But leave it to regain its original temperature and the original pressure will be restored, albeit with a reduced volume of liquid.

The pressure in the cylinder remains constant (unless there is a temperature change) when both gas and liquid fuel is present.

Truckcab is/was quite correct insofar as the BSS does not specify wall thickness of gas pipe. For what it's worth, neither does the RCR/RCD - beyond requiring it to be both suitable and safe. There are doubtless other standards/recommendations that specify wall thickness- but those who claim these are mandatory in truckcab's situation are unable to explain why. Which pipes are safe/safer/safest is a separate discussion.

Where is the RCR requirement relating to specific wall thickness of gas pipe? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1 Are you still maintaining that the RCD/RCR itself requires meeting certain ISOs? You have said you would find the alleged requirement a couple of times at least, but I think it has yet to be produced.

How many waterways has Blackrose travelled in the last 10 years?

Paddle gear of the same principle is used on the Medway. https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tonycanalpics.co.uk%2Fseast%2Fmedway%2F2175.jpg&tbnid=bAVU9g3Rx5DzsM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tonycanalpics.co.uk%2Fseast%2Fmedway%2F&docid=ruOJS0Jsl2DzpM&w=367&h=550&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2#imgrc=bAVU9g3Rx5DzsM

I check the permitted dimensions for the Ribble Link & Stanedge Tunnel before completing the CRT forms; just to make sure that no inaccurate data is communicated of course. Neither the Ribble Link nor the Lancaster Canal seemed exceptionally shallow to me. As others have stated, the Ribble Crossing does require one to push the engine hard for a long period. It is the most testing of engine/cooling of all the common trips for narrow boats. You may well find you have time in hand - but unless you make the journey frequently, you only discover you could have taken it a little easier when it's over. We were fine - but one boat in our group overheated after only a few miles out on the Douglas. Operating the central heating through the plate exchanger seemed a sensible precaution, but I doubt it was essential.

Please sir, Pythagoras can't claim the credit for this phenomena. More to do with Galileo. It's because at small angles there is little difference between the sine and tangent. And the longer the rope, the smaller the angle. Galileo's observation that the period of a pendulum is (nearly) the same regardless of its amplitude also only works with smallish swings relies on the same thing.

The small tank and pump are there to address the drips from the stern gland. The pump won't remove water from outside the tank, which has come from elsewhere. For what it's worth, a bilge pump leaves a little water behind in any event. If you want the bilges bone dry, you'll need to get busy with a bucket and sponge. The water may return, of course.

Is that an opinion or a fact?

The most difficult case is locating public slipper baths. I used a couple in the 1970s when boating but a quick Google suggests none remain in the UK.

The thing to bear in mind throughout, is that the current owner is seeking to sell its boat to you.

Indeed. The print comes off for the unwary.

Yes. Man wearing a milkman's cap and situated in a small, wooden shed - as best I can recall from the early 1970s.

Yes. It is common ground that the RCR Essential Requirements must be met and, of course, you may need to demonstrate it. And it is accepted that meeting certain ISOs is deemed to meet certain aspects of the RCR. No doubt you may need to demonstrate that too What is questioned is whether the RCR requires one to meet standards equivalent to the ISOs (if they are not met directly) insofar as they exceed the RCR Essential Requirements. For example, I understand that the ISOs require a fuel tank acces hatch and prohibit earth returns to the horn. Neither of these are direct RCR requirements - but you claim they are indirectly imported. Can you back that up?