Alan de Enfield

But it doesnt say on the bag "does not retain fexibility, and is not suitable for use in applications with regular vibration and occasional impacts with lock walls, boats etc"

Just check the rules for spacing between services (particularly wire types* and gas pipes) * ie, double insulated wires can be attached directly to gas pipes.

Nylon or Polyethylene. And add pull-strings whilst you can.

It is functional and chesp - and OK as long as you understand its limitations. The BIG problem is that polystyrene 'attacks' PVC and makes it brittle. If PVC cables are in contact with polystyrene it can cause shorts as the PVC cracks and drops off alowing the copper conductors to touch. when I worked for a cable manufacturing company, If we knew the application could result in polystyrene contact we had to use a very special grade of PVC that had added 'stuff' in it to avoid the Polystyrene effect.

You need undiluted white vinegar - soaking for 20-30 mins is all it takes

That sounds like the 'rubbery stuff' (Cork tile adhesive) that I used. Cost is almost irellevant. Its not as if we are doing a huge area, a small tub is more than enough - what cost to do the job once (properly) rather than do it every other year, removing the stove, cleaning up the old adhesive, and replacing tiles that have broken as they fall off ?

I was told by a 'solid fuel fire fitter' to use the adhesive for cork floor tiles. Used it on my porcelain tiles and after several years, when we sold the boat, not one had moved or come loose.

Boat, and people who float.

In a case bought by the EA the High Court determined that a static caravan, on floats, in a marina is not a boat (vessel) and does not come under any legislation applicable to houseboats. An interesting 24 page record of the Court decisions. Introduction 1. In this appeal we must consider whether each of two “houseboats”, both moored in the Hartford Marina on the River Great Ouse in Huntingdon, was properly found by the Crown Court not to a be “vessel” within the definition provided by article 2 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 (“the Inland Waterways Order”). 2. The appeal before us is an appeal by way of case stated under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The appellant is the Environment Agency, the respondents Christopher Gibbs and Glen Parker. Mr Gibbs and Mr Parker each owns and occupies one of the two “houseboats”. The decision under challenge was made on 10 April 2015 by Mr Recorder Fields and two lay justices sitting in the Crown Court at Peterborough. The Crown Court allowed Mr Gibbs’ and Mr Parker’s appeals against their convictions by the magistrates of offences of keeping an unregistered vessel on a waterway, contrary to articles 4(1) and 18(1)(a) of the Inland Waterways Order. The issue in the appeal 3. The basis of the Crown Court’s decision was that neither “houseboat” was a “vessel” for the purpose of the Inland Waterways Order. In paragraph 19 of the case stated “[the] question for the opinion of the High Court is whether the Crown Court was right to conclude on [the facts stated] that the structures in question were not vessels for the purposes of the [Inland Waterways Order]”. 4. The Environment Agency contends that the structures were “vessels” within the statutory definition. It emphasizes the object of the Inland Waterways Order, as a legislative instrument, to regulate certain activities on certain waterways, and the deliberately broad, though not exhaustive, definition of a “vessel” in article 2. It urges us to accept that, in the particular factual context with which we are concerned, a “houseboat” is manifestly a “vessel” within that definition, and thus properly the subject of regulation in the public interest.

Indeed in the 1971 Act there are several sections refering to houseboats - the summary could be "The authority can set any conditions it wishes and charge whatever it wants" Eg section 14 Whilst C&RT do not particularly like Houseboats they find it a useful method of getting rid of CMers, as if it is a non-navigable boat it is a Houseboat and C&RT can set any terma and conditions they wish - making it unpleasant' for the owner. I had some long discussions with Nigel Moore on this subject, and one of his thoughts was ................. NM : The whole “houseboat” issue is one which CaRT have very mixed feelings about. On the one hand they would be happy to dispense with them altogether – and have allowed them to be whittled down to 80 or less at last count I know of – because of what they see to be onerous obligations over security of tenure and the legal requirement to pass on the benefits to subsequent owners - yet they find it useful to arbitrarily re-classify any pleasure boat as a houseboat for the purpose of s.8 litigation. However absurd the result, it ties in neatly, for them, with the messy definitions within the 1971 Act, wherein houseboats are classified as [inter alia] anything that is not bona fide used for navigation. Hence, on their argument, once a boat can be said to no longer being so used, it becomes a houseboat – automatically non-compliant with the mandatory T&C’s applying to those. All a bit clever when you stop to analyse it.

My boat is a tad over 4mts and about 3" below the 'standard' bridge height. When we moved it to North Wales we needed an escort vehicle to ensure the road was clear to go around roundabouts the wrong way, etc etc. Route planning was difficiult and we needed a truck which could lower its bed down to 50mm above the road (and still be able to travel) to get under bridges. We were on C&RT waters (Newark Marina) and the licence was well over £1000 (5 years ago)

But, if there are, better to find them before you hand over the cash !

My concern would be the joining of the 3-poles into a triangle and the attachment of a car tow-ball to the apexs of the scaf-poles. They are not particulary strong in the horizontal plane and can be relatively easily be bent (by hand) because of the length.

Just for take off - the turbulence caused by the raindrops destroys the lift Yes but you are going fast enough to 'blow' the water off 1) Instructor complacency - "it'll be ok" 2) Yes wings to be wiped down before starting

Pigs rule - OK !

Once you find out 'whats what', wrap some tape around each pipe and label it. Eg: Cold In Hot out Engine in Engine out Radiators in Radiators out It's then so much simpler to problem solve. Are you sure you have a horizontal calorifier and not a vertical one 'lying down' ? This is a horizontal calorified I had in my last NB (before I marked the pipes)

I did my fire training when I was a civilian flying instructor in the RAF. We actually had to fight the fire and attempt to get 'people' out of the burning aircraft. We did this in old 'scrapped aircraft' on the airfield perimeter. Aircraft set on fire and in we went. I actually had to cut the wing and canopy off a small aircraft to get captain and copilot out in a 'real life accident' - fortunately no fire ! It had stalled on take off (wet wings) and flipped inverted. The P2 (Sue Earle) was the wife of the club treasurer Both were got out suffering bad bruisng and sprains - nothing broken.

Not just mass, but, the additional beam will mean a far higher resistance to the water flow.

No - it is still there its just that you have chosen to 'block it'.