Alan de Enfield

Thats what I was told by the instructor on the compressor course (which you have to pass to be allowed to operate the diving compressors)

Because builders, and particularly DIY builders lie ! The documentation must be completed and signed-off by a 'Notified Body' who is qualified and approved by the RCD/ RCR. This is the PCA form that must be completed : DoC for PCA for Recreational Craft - en180708 fil.pdf EQUIVALENT CONFORMITY BASED ON POST-CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT (MODULE PCA) 1.Conformity based on post-construction assessment is the procedure to assess the equivalent conformity of a product for which the manufacturer has not assumed the responsibility for the product’s conformity with this Directive, and whereby a natural or legal person referred to in Article 19(2), (3) or (4) who is placing the product on the market or putting it into service under his own responsibility is assuming the responsibility for the equivalent conformity of the product. This person shall fulfill the obligations laid down in points 2 and 4 and ensure and declare on his sole responsibility that the product concerned, which has been subject to the provisions of point 3, is in conformity with the applicable requirements of this Directive. 2.The person who is placing the product on the market or putting it into service shall lodge an application for a post-construction assessment of the product with a notified body and must provide the notified body with the documents and technical file enabling the notified body to assess the conformity of the product with the requirements of this Directive and any available information on the use of the product after its first putting into service. The person who is placing such a product on the market or putting it into service shall keep these documents and information at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for 10 years after the product has been assessed on its equivalent conformity in accordance with the post-construction assessment procedure. 3.The notified body shall examine the individual product and carry out calculations, tests and other assessments, to the extent necessary to ensure that the equivalent conformity of the product with the relevant requirements of this Directive is demonstrated. The notified body shall draw up and issue a certificate and a related report of conformity concerning the assessment carried out and shall keep a copy of the certificate and related report of conformity at the disposal of the national authorities for 10 years after it has issued these documents. The notified body shall affix its identification number next to the CE marking on the approved product or have it affixed under its responsibility. The builder also has to certify that they have constructed the boat to the relevant specified ISO standards, OR, detail under what standards the boat has been built that allows the essential requirments to have been met. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION The technical documentation referred to in Article 7(2) and Article 25 shall, as far as it is relevant for the assessment, contain the following: (a) A general description of the type; (b) Conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, and other relevant data; (c) Descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of said drawings and schemes and the operation of the product; (d) A list of the standards referred to in Article 14, applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to fulfil the essential requirements when the standards referred to in Article 14 have not been applied; (e) Results of design calculations made, examinations carried out and other relevant data; (f) Test reports, or calculations namely on stability in accordance with point 3.2 of Part A of Annex I and on buoyancy in accordance with point 3.3 of Part A of Annex I; (g) Exhaust emissions test reports demonstrating compliance with Section 2 of Part B of Annex I; (h) Sound emissions test reports demonstrating compliance with Section 1 of Part C of Annex I.

I beg to differ - we tend to get 'compressed air' in our car tyres, and I certainly get compressed air (230 atmospheres) in my diving cylinders. The air is so compressed it has a consitency almost like Nutela.

Your solar (from the controller) should be directly wired to the batteries - Do not go thru the master switches, do not pass "GO". They go directly to the batteries. Or maybe the newbie is the one who is the 'knob'!

All moorings are 'affordable' (by someone). We do not know the OPs circumstances he may well be prepared to spend £3000 per month on his mooring. (Mind you, if he can, he'd could afford a small flat and wouldn't have the capital expenditure of £150,000 to buy the boat). It's easy to assume that all people working in London and want a boat are waiters, cleaning staff etc, 'mimium wage' employees.

Shey : Alternatively, why did you choose a widebeam mooring if you only wanted a Narrowboat ? Just because you are paying (presumably) a premium for a widebeam mooring doesn't mean you have to use it 'all'.

Wait for the buyers remorse to REALLY kick in !

Narrow Escapes, review: this gentle float around Britain’s waterways makes gongoozlers of us all Narrow Escapes, review: this gentle float around Britain’s waterways makes gongoozlers of us all (msn.com)

A few days later, in the same thread Nigel posted : It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act. BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.” Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act. https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.

Something else to discuss. In 1954 BW were granted the powers to make Bye Laws. And then ........... Section (5) of the BW 1975 Act extended the byelaw making powers of 1954, which from that point on “shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with any such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .” An extract from a post by Nigel Moore The pleasure boat licence was a direct and immediate result of these new powers, but no further conditions were attached, non-compliance with which could exclude any boat. Instead of promoting such conditions to the licence through byelaws, BW instead pursued the perfectly legitimate route of primary legislation – hence s.17 of the 1995 Act, which still contain the only grounds upon which licences may be refused or revoked. Arguably CaRT inherit to right to create enforceable terms and conditions to this licence therefore, through the medium of new byelaws – but only via that route. Perhaps, though, as I have wondered aloud before, it might be that the terms of the 1995 Act have actually closed that door for good; if so, then BW really shot themselves in the foot well and truly, overlooking essential protective wording in their zeal to introduce new enforceable powers over boaters. Not that they nor their successor have ever bothered their heads about such niceties – they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.

How can it tell you what fraction of capacity you have used without knowing what the capacity is ? If it is simply taking the voltage and saying "12.2 volts, therefore you have 50% capacity remaining" I'don't view that as being much help, unless the actual (not original) battery capacity is known.

Ok I now understand what the smartgauge can do, but for me I can easily measure a battery and ascetain its SoC, what I need to know is does it have enough capoacity for what I want.

But they do have the power to do that under the 1971 & 1983 Acts of Parliament. They are not 'inventing new requirements' (or laws)

Maybe that's where I am getting confused. You could have a 110Ah battery that is sulphated and only has 6Ah capacity but it can still be fully charged at 12.9v and show 100% You can have a brand new 1000Ah battery bank that shows 12.9v and show 100%. Voltage alone gives no idea about battery capacity.

My understanding is that you need to 'tell it' what the real (current) battery capacity is - not the theoretical, so it can work out when the batteries are fully charged.

C&RT have already tried as they ADVISE that ,,,,,, If you need to work in a fixed location If you have children who need schooling in a fixed location If you have medical requirements that mean you need to be in a fixed location for long periods Then you probably would be unable to meet the rules for claiming a licenc based on having no home mooring. C&RT in 'in a bad place' with very few options. The cannot invent requirements, they cannot make new laws, or, amend old laws. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis] This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online – http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

For comparison The 2nd example looks (to me) to be more, darker bluish

Yup - He's lost.

His needle has got stuck in that groove again - someone give him a kick.

Thats the sort of thing my 8 year old Son would have said, along with stamping his feet, when he knew he had lost the argument. That'll be all from you then ?

Indeed they have, but only the T&Cs that are lawful can be applied, C&RT can request compliance with other T&Cs but at the end of the day C&RT do not any authority to write new laws'. Again - Nigel Moores take on the subject : Legality OF C&RT’s T&C’s It should be clarified that much of the T&C's are a repeat of, or reference to, byelaw provisions, and enforceable in law by the method prescribed (not by unlawfully making them a contractual condition for issue of the licence). Those cannot be said to be foisted upon us via the T&C's, justly or unjustly. Others are sensible guidelines without the force of law, which boaters would do well to adhere to. But yes, certain other morally and legally objectionable ones do purport to dispense with statutory protections – and consent to share one's personal information where that would conflict with the current law would be amongst them, as would the grant of permission to board boats regardless of the statutory constraints of the 1983 Act, as would also be the case with agreeing to pay the costs of CaRT moving your boat off from where it was obstructing (BW fought and lost at least one case in which they alleged such a right to charge for doing so). Nigel Moore 2/3/19