Sven...

I am looking to paint my boat, but without doing the full monty... Could do with some advice though. There are plenty of discussions here and elsewhere as to how to do a complete paint job: You blast off all the old layers, apply a primer, then add three or four layers of undercoat, and finish off with two layers of top coat. Sanding between each layer, controlling the temperature and humidity, using only the finest paint products, and so on and so forth... It takes a full Summer and no doubt can give a great result. That is fine if you have just bought the boat and if you are going to keep it for the next decade.... But my situation is the opposite. I am selling the boat. It does not look terrible, and there are no serious issues with rust. There is no need to change the colour. But it could do with a facelift. The paint is a bit faded and uneven, and there is the inevitable scratch and repair and so on. The whole boat is a DIY job anyway, practical but not stunning. It is intended for living aboard 365 days a year, so the glossy holiday finish would be out of place. I think a budget job will be just fine. So... I have a few weeks to spare, and some basic DIY skills. I am thinking, it should be possible to just give the whole boat a facelift by applying a single layer of paint... or perhaps two. This would hopefully lift the overall impression enough so the boat is presentable, find a happy buyer, and look fine for a year or two or three. A more substantial treatment can be a consideration for another soul, another time. Sadly there seems to be no information online as to how to achieve this. So I have been doing some guesswork. Below is my preliminary plan... But there are some open questions. Any comment would be welcome. - Paint and equipment will be found at Homebase or B&Q.. no need for specialised boat paint - I will aim to find colours as close as possible to the existing ones - I will start small, treating a limited area before embarking on the whole boat. Hence will soon learn if the products and process be suitable and/or if the approach needs amending (How would I know if the new paint and the old paint are compatible?) - First I plan to wash the surface thoroughly with soap (which soap?) to get rid of dirt - I will use a metal scrape to get off any loose paint. I would aim to avoid getting to any exposed steel, as the boat has a number of layers from before - Any rusty spots to be treated with Locktite or similar - Then I will rub the surface lightly with sand paper, to ensure the new layer gets a good grip (which degree sand paper?) - Painting to be done on a dry day, not sunny nor windy - On the morning of the actual paint job, I will treat the surface with white spirit, to ensure it is totally clean again - Painting, using the roll and brush tip off technique - I will decide after the one layer, if another one is required What do you think? S.

So after a long time contemplating it, I finally bought myself a proper solar charge controller - the Outback FM60. Specifications are here: http://www.outbackpower.com/products/charge_controllers/flexmax/ For the leftover money, I got some solar panels - namely, 6 x 80W monocrystalline panels. Specifications are..: Optimum voltage: 17.39V Optimum current: 4.61A Open-C voltage: 21.97V Short-C current: 4.98A Operating temp.: 47C Temp.coefficient of VoC: -0.35%/C Max series fuse rating: 12A The panels will be fixed flat on the roof. The purpose of this installation is to supply most of my power needs in Summer, a little bit in Winter, and help charging the batteries all round. There are 6 x 110 Ah 12V domestic batteries. As a continuously cruising liveaboard with no access to mains power, I trust this kit will go some way towards keeping my batteries alive and topped up. Now I am pondering how to wire everything up, and what type of cable to install... The beauty of having 6 panels is that they can be wired in a number of ways: - All panels in parallell (17V, 27A) - Three strings of two panels (35V, 14A) - Two strings of three panels (52V, 9A) - All panels in series (104V, 4.6A) As discussed in these forums, there are distinct benefits to connecting more panels in series: - Higher voltages and lower amperes will mean less energy lost to heat in the cables, and/or cheaper cables. - With higher voltages, charging will start earlier in the day and importantly, continue longer into the evening... which is very good for batteries. But there are drawbacks as well – especially, it seems that shade can severely affect the output if the panels are connected in series. My lighting conditions will vary - I guess there is going to be a continuous mix of sun and shade all the time. I am tempted to connect all the panels together in one long series, but have seen advice to step up only two or three times from the battery voltages... Is there any risk at all that one long series could be too much for the controller? I certainly would not want to hurt that baby, but it seems it can handle up to 150V, and 6 x 22V makes only 132V... still leaving some margin (in case of cold and bright weather I guess). Could it be an option to connect the panels differently in Summer and Winter? I suppose it is crucial to get the voltage as high as possible in Winter especially. There is also the question of what cable to get? The panels will be around 10 meters from the controller, so voltage loss in the cables will be an issue. I would think 4mm cable is OK if I go for the highest voltage (104V, 4.6A), but am not sure about the next step down (52V, 9A). Perhaps it can be an idea to lay two sets of cables all the way...effectively, 8mm. Since the controller can handle all the different wiring configurations, it will be tempting to try every option and measure the outcome over several sunny days. Should I just plug the cables from the panels straight into the controller, or is an isolator and/or fuse recommended... especially if I will play around with the wiring? As to connecting the controller to the batteries, there is another 2m distance so probably some thicker cable would be good there. I plan to bypass the main isolator. Sven

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. Lots of great ideas have come up... I am currently busy researching it all, ordering new gear, etc. All the best, Sven

>Are all the batteries the same age? Yes they were all bought new last Summer.

>Can you see the pattern? I did not expect this to turn into a discussion of how the batteries are interconnected, and so the letters I chose might have been misleading..! The batteries are all connected in parallell, but not in an A-B-C-D-E-F fashion. The connections go like this: A-B-C-F-E-D. So there are short cables from A to B, from B to C, from C to F, from F to E, and from E to D. (The cables from C to F are longer than the others.) The main positive lead for charging and take off is connected to the positive of battery A. The main negative lead for charging and take off is connected to the negative of battery D... in other words, as far as possible (diagonally) from the main positive... as frequently recommended. Hence it does not look to me like the way the batteries are interconnected could explain the differences. Sven

Thank you all for your answers. This has helped clarify what I probably should have realised long ago: My problem is not the batteries, but the charging. I promised some more measurements, so here are the figures for my three other domestic batteries, as well as the starter battery. These measurements were made exactly like the first three (see the first post of this thread): Battery D – 12.7, 12.7, 12.7, 12.6, 12.4 volts Battery E – 11.1, 10.8, 10.9, 10.8, 10.8 volts Battery F – 11.1, 11.1, 11.1, 11.0, 10.8 volts Battery S – 13.0, 12.8, 12.8, 12.6, 12.5 volts As we saw earlier, only battery C seemed to be in good order among the first 3. Now it looks like also battery D is okay, and possibly battery S – the starter battery. However, the latter has not been able to start my engine recently. It does crank the starter a bit, but not fast enough to start. Is it clear from the voltages above that the starter battery is past its useful life? Could it be the case that this battery has lost the ability to start the engine but might be useful for domestic purposes? >A much more efficient way to charge the batteries would be to use the Honda and Victron. Yes I would do that more, if petrol were typically available along the canal :-) I think maybe Arthur had the best idea of all... With my type of use (CC and heavy power usage) probably I should invest into some solar panels asap. It has been on my to-do list for years. Summer is soon here, so with a bit of luck and care and good weather, perhaps I can then keep my existing batteries for a while still. With regards to the individual batteries: For the short term I am considering to create a new, reduced domestic bank from the 3 apparently best batteries - C, D, S. Yes that includes the old starter battery. I feel I do not really need so many batteries if I get solar panels... at least not for the next half a year. So instead of replacing the whole lot now, all I would need to buy is a new starter battery. >If battery A is the first one in the line and battery C the last I would also be prepared to bet that the pos and neg are taken from the same battery and not opposite ends of the bank! The connections are at opposite ends of the bank already... But thanks for the reminder..! >If they are less than a year old I doubt a cell has gone yet; It's sulphation and partial recovery is possible Thank you, I will keep them all, and play around with them a bit to see what can be done..! Sven

I bet this one is easy to answer for those of you who are passionate about batteries :-) Basically I have had my domestic battery bank for less than a year, and I wonder if the batteries are already knackered, because they seem hardly able to supply enough power for a single night of use. There are 6 x 110 Ah 12V wet lead-acid deep-cycle leasure batteries. As a liveaboard with no access to mains power, both my charging and discharging would be quite a random affair. Not ideal, I know. Today I have made some very simple measurements, which I hope can tell if the batteries are still any good. Here is what I did: First ran the boat engine for 10 hours or so, in order to give all the batteries a good charge via the alternator. Towards the end of the charge, the voltage at the battery poles was 14.3 volts. I then disconnected three of the batteries completely, in order to make some measurements... I do not have a hydrometer, but I have a good digital voltmeter and some light bulbs. I found some 12V 20W halogen bulbs and attached one to each battery, using crocodile clamps. In other words, I now had three separate sets of 12V battery + near 2A load. All 3 lights were shining brightly. However, the voltmeter would soon tell that there were differences between the three sets. I took readings after 5 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, and 5 hours - all while the loads were still on. Here are the results - all readings rounded to one decimal: Battery A – 11.3, 10.7, 10.7, 10.7, 10.6 volts Battery B – 12.9, 11.8, 10.7, 10.7, 10.4 volts Battery C – 13.0, 12.8, 12.7, 12.6, 12.5 volts My guess is that the first two batteries are ruined – possibly one of the cells gone. So do I now have two nice 10 volt batteries? The third one © is perhaps OK...? I thought it was intriguing that battery A started out much lower than B, but held the voltage better as the hours passed by. I hope to post test results for my other 3 batteries tomorrow. By the way I have ordered some Granville Bat Aid tablets and plan to see if these make any difference... are they any good..? Some other background information: I do use a lot of power (around 100-150 Ah per day is my guess). There are two alternators – a big one for the domestic bank (around 100A) and a smaller one for the separate starter battery. Here I only consider the domestic bank. I believe the cables and connectors are fairly sound. I also have a Honda generator and a Victron Phoenix charger/inverter, which I can use as an alternate way of charging - but these were not part of the test above. A few days ago I topped up the batteries with battery water. Some of them were mostly dry at the time (incl battery A above), while the others seemed fine (all cells wet – incl batteries B and C above). Sven

Thanks to everybody who answered this. You inspired me to investigate further and I managed to completely solve the problem. For anyone who is reading this and having the same problem: You need to dig out that manual and read up on EXACTLY what is the correct way to measure the oil level. Sven

Hi all, I have a Honda EU20i generator, less than a year old, which basically works fine. However, starting it can be a problem. Some times it stops after a few seconds, oil lamp lighting up. In these cases I will need to restart it around 5 times before it is happy to continue running. Once the unit has run more than a few seconds, it becomes super reliable and never stops as long as there is fuel. The oil level is just about right, as far as I can see. I have heard it needs to be neither too high nor too low. My Honda has been like this since new. I never bothered to bring the issue up with the manufacturer, as it is not really a problem... while I imagine packing and sending the unit for service would be a nightmare (is that what they'd suggest anyway?) Of course the above is a bit annoying though. Maybe you guys can think of some obvious solution that has escaped me..? Sven

Wow what a meeting that was in Stanstead Abbots between BW and boaters..! Here are just a few observations from the first consultation meeting, for the benefit of those who were not there: The village hall was filled to the brim and consisted almost entirely of boaters. There was a show of hands indicating that about half were continuous cruisers, and the other half were other boaters. Only a couple of anglers and others had found the way. BW started by trying to summarize the background for the proposals, and their content. Sally Ash was there, doing most of the talking, and she went on to comment on a few of the well-known objections to the proposals. The declaration from the Lea and Stort Boaters' group was then presented. Essentially this was a complete rejection of the proposals but also an invitation to sit down and work out the best way forward. There was some debate about the consultation process itself, and Sally Ash soon agreed that the period will have to be extended. She also said that while certain details are up for discussion (e.g. the number and size of neighbourhoods), other parts of the proposals are not – namely, some of the principles at the heart of it. There was not so much focus on the actual contents of the proposals, although some arguments arose and I believe most of the boaters' arguments were raised at one time or other. Generally the meeting was rather rowdy, and there was clear hostility from the room towards the BW panel from the start. There seemed to be not much difference in view between continuous cruisers and other boaters present. Towards the end, the meeting was calmer and both sides seemed to warm to the idea of sitting down together and working something out. The BW panel insisted that they need to work with organised bodies, not individuals. Personally I noticed some rather surprising comments from Sally Ash which might suggest that the continuous cruising lifestyle is not entirely understood or embraced. Maybe these were just Freudian slips, but I noticed her saying that “we cannot have more and more continuous cruisers coming” and in another context “Ideally we would like to give you all permanent moorings”. No doubt others will add more detail, these were just some bits that I picked up. I suppose the meeting on Wednesday will have a similar format, in other words, there will be plenty of time to talk. Sven

Making a boat move 7 miles will not free up any more space than making it move 1 mile. Enforcement of current rules would have solved the problem. The proposed new huge zones are not necessary and will introduce a whole host of other problems, like - more stress and less boating pleasure - boaters moving at higher speeds than they might otherwise prefer - more congestion at bottlenecks - more disturbance for on-line moorers, anglers, etc - more pollution - more waiting at locks - more erosion of banks - much more water required - much more wear and tear at locks And so on and so forth... And that is only for those who follow the rules. I guess there will also always be some who ignore whatever rules there are. s.

I would like to say thank you to the organisers for such a professional event in Hackney Saturday. It was impressive to see the turnout as well as hearing the many thoughtful and educated contributions. Much of the discussion was focused on the possibility of attacking, by legal means, the consultation process itself. Leaving that to one side, I wish to focus on another issue: I believe there was also consensus that boaters should, in any case, turn up at the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March in order to directly air their views about the content of the new proposals. Also, of course, boaters should write to BW and express their views. If every boater would do both, that would represent a substantial amount of input to the process. It was agreed that it would be best if each boater present their case in their own words. Among other benefits, I guess this would serve to humanize the issues. Instead of miles and weeks and pounds, we are then suddenly talking about daily life, families, businesses, etc. This might help win the broadest possible support. Some of the other interest groups involved might know precious little about boaters to start with. I know I had virtually no idea who these boating people were, until I got my own boat last Summer. And there is power in numbers. Twenty real-life stories weigh more than two. But, as was mentioned on Saturday, many boaters might be afraid to speak up.... To that end, perhaps it would be helpful if a framework or template be developed for how each boater can best present their case? This can help ensure that the maximum possible number of boaters do talk or write, and also help ensure that some key points come across many times... I am thinking of CCers especially, who are set to be hardest hit. On another note, and as discussed on Saturday: Because many other groups than boaters will be represented at these meetings (and later on in the process), it might be best if we all try as far as possible to take an inclusive, constructive approach, especially with regards to other groups of canal users. Below I have attempted to craft the beginnings of just such a template for CCers. Hopefully others can add to or otherwise improve upon this - but here we go..: 1. Introduction: Personal history with the canals - current lifestyle / situation. 2. Fundamentals: Referring to the 1995 Act and how our lifestyle has the protection of Parliament. 3. Recognition of some or all of the known problems in the Lea area (as recently expressed by BW). 4. Thoughts about what could be the real reasons for the problems (e.g. a lack of clarity and/or enforcement). 5. Feelings about the consultation process. 6. Personal consequences of BW's proposals - how they seem draconian, complex, unlawful, etc 7. General consequences of BW's proposals - e.g. how the proposed extreme increase in canal traffic will be disruptive, costly.. 8. Personal experiences with other interest groups (residents, anglers, etc). 9. About a desire to live in harmony with these other groups. Maybe something about low-impact living, community involvement, etc. 10. Ideas for better ways of solving the recognised problems. That last point is important, and further to it, I suggest we keep in mind that money is tight. Hence it might not be wise to suggest that BW spend money, without also indicating how it can be financed. On this point I guess it does not hurt if we try, at this stage, to be creative and throw in lots of (realistic) ideas. Here is just one such idea: Better enforcement of existing guidelines - financed by fees payable for failure to follow them. The order of the items is not important. Again, these were just my ideas for a template as to how each and every boater can speak up and make a case in the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March (and/or in writing). It would be interesting to see alternative framework ideas - I am sure it can be done even better, and/or with more detail. Perhaps someone could even write up their full story / views - with or without building on this framework - as an inspiration for others? I would guess that the more we prepare and think about this in the short time available, the better we will fare in the process to come. All the best, Sven

It seems nobody has yet commented on this particular statement in the new proposals: "By cruising continuously throughout the plan area, keeping to the 14 day limits and spending an equal amount of total time in each of the six neighbourhoods across a year, it is possible to remain in the plan area for the whole period of the licence without incurring any charges." To me this seems to imply that by travelling only up and down the Lee and Stort a few times per year, no extra charges are incurred. In other words, a CCer will not be required to ever leave that area. That is perhaps an interesting clarification.

The way I understand the proposal, continuous cruisers will need to satisfy both of these requirements: - Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood - During a 12 month period, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood Link to BW’s mooring proposals: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listening-to-you/consultations-and-reviews/current-consultations

No, that is terribly wrong. The proposed conditions for the Lea involve something like 10 to 15 lock-miles to be travelled every 14 days, as a minimum. And even more on the Stort. Edited - Just to clarify what the proposal says..: 1) Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood. 2) If the boater overstays in a neighbourhood beyond the 14 days they will incur a charge for each additional day they remain 3) Boaters will not be able to return to a neighbourhood they have just come from unless they have reached a terminus. 4) Between the start and end dates of the boat‟s 12 month licence, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood.

It seems to me that most parties are overlooking the elephant in the room here... Continuous moorers aside, a core problem according to BW is: “The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly” They go on to describe all the problems caused by the near 40% increase, or a count of 200 more boats. And they suggest a number of ways these boaters can be pushed, taxed, urged, etc. But hang on a minute! Is it not the purpose of any part of government to serve the people? And in a free country, is it not the case that people can move where they like? If there are 200 more boats on the Lee, there must be 200 fewer boats elsewhere - except for the boats that are newbuilds. To the degree that the extra boats are new, they are taking out shiny new licences with BW. Licence evasion is not seen to be a problem, so BW have fresh money to go with any new boats. And if the boats come from other parts of the country, whatever extra needs now exist on the Lee are mirrored by reduced needs elsewhere. The solution is obvious: BW must re-allocate their resources according to where the boats are! They must (all other things being equal) urgently add somehing like 40% more funds to the upkeep of the Lee navigation, and reduce budgets elsewhere correspondingly (probably evenly across the country). That means new waterpoints and toilets, more online moorings, new marina developments, extra lock keepers, maybe even more enforcement officers, on the Lee. And correspondingly less elsewhere. Things will then be back in balance! The problem is NOT that “The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly”. The problem is that “BW has not managed the shift in boat traffic properly”! To make a comparison, just imagine what would happen if more people started moving to a particular part of the country - adding pressure to the schools, hospitals, road system, and so on. Say, 40% more people in one town. What should the government do? Start harassing them? Or shift budgets? Sven

I see that a lot of our energy goes into discussing among ourselves how badly BW are managed and to which degree BW have a right to interpret the law, charge money, etc. May I suggest that this is a waste of precious time and energy now at an important crossroads. The legal details and framework could change anyway – the whole situation is in flux with BW converting to a charity etc. What is certain is that BW is and will be a heavyweight. Whatever rules and guidelines BW draw up are going to be important one way or another in the future. Moreover, the proposals which now apply only to the Lea Valley are likely to soon spread to the whole country. So I suggest that instead of discussing legal theory, we should focus on the material proposals which are on the table and work towards getting them tweaked towards becoming as acceptable as possible for all boaters.

But there is no reason why these areas have to be big. Logically, the same effect can be achieved by way of the traditional neighbourhood size (village/parish). I believe the problem in the past has not been the size of the areas, but the lack of enforcement.

I believe the proposal says that you will only be able to stay 7 or 14 days within each neighbourhood at one time. The max-61-days-per-year rule is a separate restriction. Please read: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Lee_Area_Proposed_Mooring_Plan.zip These proposals, while introducing many new problems, do not seem designed to change that situation.

Hi all, While totally understanding the need to ensure that boats move around, I feel the proposed new rules to be draconian and likely to cause all sorts of problems. Moreover, they are going to spread to the entire country if left unchallenged. I am one of those continuous cruisers who tries my best to stay within the letter and spirit of the law. While I have not sailed on the Lea/Lee yet, I plan to go there in a few weeks. The main problem I see is the size of the new “neighbourhoods” that CCers will be required to move between. Because... This is what used to be BW's policy: “...on a rural waterway a village or hamlet will be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city will be a neighbourhood... in densely populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually be a locality or 'place').” That is perhaps not entirely clear but still makes sense. It makes for a pleasant life moving around the system at a leasurely pace with much choice. But now BW are proposing a set of new “super-neighbourhoods” the size of a small county. If these are accepted, life on the cut will become much less flexible. There will be a constant pressure to follow a fairly fixed plan and move at least 6-7 miles at a time, or pay out the nose. In the height of Summer, this is of course not an issue. Our boats are made for moving and nothing is better than spending all day sailing when conditions invite for it. There are many days and weeks during a year, however, which do not invite for sailing long distances. I can think of times when an hour or so on the cut was quite enough. So the proposed new “super-neighbourhoods” would imply a significant extra burden when you least need it. And please don't get me started about Winter moorings – if I really wanted to live for 5 months in the same spot, I would get one of those brick thingies..! Here is the sad part: The extra hassle for boaters caused by this change of definition will not be balanced by any benefits whatsoever, for any other parties! While more effective enforcement and steep fines will possibly have an effect - freeing up space and solving other problems – I believe introducing the new “super-neighbourhoods” as opposed to the old “village” neighbourhoods will bring nothing but hassle. Making a boat move 7 miles will not free up any more space than making it move 1 mile! The much increased traffic will only cause unnecessary problems - for all parties. The problems include - more stress and less boating pleasure - more erosion of banks - more congestion at bottlenecks - more disturbance for on-line moorers, anglers, etc - boaters moving at higher speeds than they might otherwise prefer - more pollution - more waiting at locks - much more water required - much more wear and tear at locks Small neighbourhoods in line with the old definition, coupled with some of the new ideas for effective enforcement would be sufficient to solve the problems in question. But the change to super-neighbourhoods would cause lots of new problems without adding ANY extra benefits! Please note that this does not only concern the rivers Stort and Lee/Lea. BW say the Regent's canal will be next, and if unchallenged, no doubt this new idea will then be deployed nationwide. Time is running out and now is the time for constructive action, not bickering amongst ourselves! Therefore I suggest... We boaters should take BW's idea and tweak it with smaller neighbourhoods. We should draw up an alternative map of the rivers Lea and Stort – one with smaller neighbourhoods in line with the old definition. For example, on the stretch from Limehouse to Edmonton I believe that at least 5 neighbourhoods can be marked out – maybe more. NO! I am not intending to spend the whole year travelling from Limehouse to Hertford. But I'd love to be able to move fast some times and slow at other times. I am sure you all feel more or less the same. This alternative map can be contributed to BW and presented at the upcoming meetings. It will be a constructive input which can solve the problems equally well as BW's map. This alternative map can be crafted regardless of any discussion about the other aspects of the proposal – fee levels, 7-day zones, etc. Unless this alternative map is presented, BW will get their way by default, and you will soon see these super-neighbourhoods all over the country. Next Winter it might be you who experience much less flexibility in your boating life! The map we draw here can in time become a template for the entire country. Who picks up the challenge? Edited to add... On a related note, I have been texted this: Come to london boaters meeting on sat 26 feb 1pm st michael & all angels church hall, lavender grove E8 3LR and sign up to mailing list london@lilo.org.uk for more info. Anyone knows more about that meeting? Maybe it makes sense that boaters get together and talk before meeting BW..! Sven

I would like to share an idea for those who plan to go away for one to two weeks over Christmas and would rather not have the boat freeze, with all the potentially devastating consequences. If you have an electric hookup you are all set of course... Just stick a low power electric heater in the boat. But for us CC'ers, or if your electric supply is unreliable, how about this: In addition to other winterization measures, and especially if you are unable to take all the recommended steps, I suggest using gas to heat the boat while away. This could be done in several ways, but if you have a gas hob: You could just ignite one of the burners on the hob, turn it to the lowest setting, and leave it. The flame will be going for a long time and should raise the temperature in the boat by a few degrees. Since the inside temperature is not likely to fall much below zero anyway (due to boat floating in mostly liquid water), hopefully this measure will keep the air temperature inside the boat above zero at all times. I am doing an experiment right now to find out just how long the flame will burn. Based on previous experience, I think it will last for around 14 days on a full standard bottle. A bottle of gas is 24 pounds where I am... That is worth the peace of mind for me. Since I live in the boat, I would hate nothing more than plumbing problems in the middle of Winter. Obviously there are some safety issues, but they can all be dealt with as far as I can see... Make sure there is nothing flammable near the hob. Check that the hob has a working auto-shut-off in case the flame goes out. If testing this while also living in the boat, this is the time to get that CO alarm as well as a gas alarm fitted. When used together with other appropriate measures, the above could be a simple and fairly cheap way of insuring against freezing problems. Sven

But that is not at all the same thing. The difference between the 11W and 60W is almost entirely down to heat. An old fashioned light bulb gives off lots of heat and not that much light, per watt. It is inefficient at generating light. That sounds like a complete lie :-) How can one heater be more efficient than another?

Thank you all for your input and advice on this..! For a start I have just installed the Victron monitor suggested, so now I know what current is going in and out. Will make plans from there and no doubt will have more questions for you in due course..!

OK so here are pictures... First an overview picture of the engine and alternators: Here is the domestic "Iskra" alternator...it seems there is a label on it, but this has been overpainted and some cleaning of the label did not help: Again the Iskra: Connection point between the alternator and the batteries: Batteries - the white one is the starter battery. The heavy red cable on top goes to the inverter. Yes I know it should ideally be connected at the other side of the main switch..: The smaller starter battery alternator - again no inscriptions except a logo on the back that looks like "ND":

So here is my log from the last 24 hours... Thursday morning, after a night of running various appliances, I decided to start observing closely how my charging and batteries behave. I am using my trusted old digital multimeter, a Mastech M838. This is supposed to be accurate within 0.5% with DC voltages and shows all measurements with two decimal places, like 12.04V. Below I have rounded all readings to one decimal place (like 12.0V) as I guess the second decimal might be inaccurate, and it is often fluctuating anyway. In the morning I started by turning off virtually all of the loads (by way of flipping all main switches in the boat). I waited for an hour and then measured the domestic batteries at the terminals. This showed 12.0 volt (actually between 12.02 and 12.04). I think this means around 20% state of charge for my type of batteries, certainly very little anyway. While I was down there, I also measured the starter battery, which showed 12.9V. Next I started the engine and let it run on tickover, a bit below 1000 revs that is. After a minute or two I measured voltages again. For the domestic system, I now found 13.9V at the alternator output, and 13.4V at the battery terminals. So it was charging, but I would have expected a lower voltage, as I thought the voltage is supposed to climb gradually. I also wondered if the voltage drop through the cables should be a concern. For the starter battery, I now found 12.8V at the alternator and 12.7V at the battery terminals. I guess this was also then busy charging, but again found it strange that this voltage was so much lower than for the domestic system. I came back after 10 minutes and found that things had changed for the starter battery. Its alternator now showed 14.6V and the terminals 14.4V. So the starter battery was more or less fully charged and I guess everything is good on that side of things. I made a mental note that, for 95% of the time I am not making use of the capacity of the starter alternator. Maybe a SmartBank or similar could improve this? As for the domestic bank, nothing had changed after 10 min. Again there was 13.9V at the alternator and 13.4V at the battery terminals. Next I started experimenting with revving the engine. I found that I could increase the voltage by increasing the revs. At 1200-1300 revs, I read 14.4V at the domestic alternator and 13.8V at the domestic battery terminals. A further increase of revs did not make much difference. I decided to leave it at around 1200 revs, as I suppose a higher voltage can charge the battery better and quicker. Now I switched on all my domestic gear – the fridge, inverter, computer equipment, lights, etc. I knew this would draw around 20A. (There is no central amperemeter, but in the past I have measured each appliance individually.) The charge at the battery terminals did not change from 13.8V. I felt happy about the situation, left the engine running at 1200 revs, and got back to my work. After two hours I had a look again. The domestic voltage was now 14.6V at the alternator and 14.4V at the terminals. That looked quite good I thought, so I stopped the engine to find out more. In order to allow for any surface charge to dissipate and get a proper and consistant reading, I turned off all my domestic systems again and left the batteries to rest for an hour. Actually there is always a constant 0.1 ampere load from my inverter in standby mode, but I am not sure if this is enough to take off the surface charge, combined with waiting for one hour. Anyway, 60 minutes later, my reading at the domestic battery terminals said 13.4 volt. I also noticed the starter battery now showing 13.2 volt. With the engine not running, I turned on all my domestic equipment again (20A or so) and noticed the voltage at the domestic battery terminals drop from 13.4 to to 13.1V. I decided to run the engine to supply my needs and charge the batteries for a few hours more (1200 revs). After two hours, around 4pm, I stopped the engine again, turned off all the load (except the constant 0.1 ampere) and went away for two hours. On coming back in the early evening, the battery again measured 13.4V at the terminals. I felt there could be some surface charge left and applied some load to be certain to get rid of this – 20A for 5 minutes. I then turned everything off again and measured 13.3V at the terminals. I felt confident that the batteries were fully charged and that they also probably had been fully charged earlier in the day. Overnight I used some lights and water, and of course the 12V fridge was humming. I was also running the Webasto diesel central heating system, which I know would draw around 4 Ampere all night. (Yes I know the central heating is not necessary at this time of year, but Winter is coming soon enough, so I need to know if this all works.) Next morning, Friday around 10am I disconnected everything again and measured the batteries at the terminals. The result was, 11.9V. I take this to mean the state of charge was less than 20%... Not good. If the batteries' capacity is still 330AH (remember they are almost new), and if they were fully charged yesterday at 4pm, I must have used some 250AH by 10am the morning. In other words, my average consumption over 18 hours must have been close to 15A. That is more than I would expect, but not impossible. In any case, it seems I need more batteries, and some monitoring equipment to keep me much better informed. Could it even be possible that my batteries are damaged? I know that just after I bought them, I went away for 5 days and forgot to turn off the fridge. When coming back, the batteries were flat. But I would hope they can survive a single incident like that. They are supposed to be good deep cycle batteries. Alternatively, because the batteries are quite new, perhaps they have not yet been cycled enough to reach their full capacity. Sven