George94

I am clearly a Lakist. But at least I am not an enCumbrance.

No, it's not. You are just being a silly-billy. And as for "touroids", don't you think that might be offensive too? Now, as I suggested earlier, lighten up. Professional offence-takers are tedious in the extreme.

My original statement was just a light-hearted, throw-away line. Not to be taken seriously. But your massive over-reaction seems to suggest that there is more than a little truth in my jest. I suggest you lighten up a little. It's more than probable. But if so, why say it is "not comprehensive"? It's the explanation rather than the decision which puzzles me.

"Not comprehensive"? So because it doesn't do everything they want, they are going to do without it altogether? Babies and bathwater anybody? Forgive me, but their logic escapes me. Why not use the BSS, and add on the extra requirements which they deem would make it comprehensive. Well, of course, they wouldn't do that because it makes sense, and making sense is not a speciality of quangoes like the LDNP. I would have understood had they said that common sense and education were more effective than rules, but they didn't say that. Very odd, these lake people.

You should never admit to being a journalist. You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God, the British journalist. But seeing what the man will do, Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Thanks for the update. Glad it's still a good place to be.

Disconnect one battery. Get a small trickle charger to keep it topped up. Every six months, change the outcast for one of the others so that they all spend part of ther time as an exile.

Who is running the Waterside at Pewsey now? When I was a semi-regular there it was a splendid ex-naval chap called Shag. The nickname was acquired in his younger days, but I won't go into detail.

Now you've got me worried. I'd be long dead if I spent on beer what I spend on the boat.

Tony, you normally give good advice on matters electrical, and I am know you are right this tiime. However, it's always helpful to say WHY a particular course of action should or should not be followed. This works better: http://www.asap-supplies.com/electrical-components/busbars-power-posts-connectors/power-distribution-busbar-729251

What this genius fails to say is that he is going to spend the rest of his life replacing dead cells, and buying new fuses because every time a cell dies it will blow its fuse. Why? Because the cells are sourced from dead laptop batteries, which means that many are a long way down the road to battery cell death before he started. And if you factor the cost of his time into this, even at $10.00 an hour, the cost of this exercise would be vastly more than the $539 he claims. Finally, he states that the cells are non-toxic and "safe". It doesn't take long on Youtube to find a number of exciting videos of lithium batteries catching fire. As for toxicity, many contain chemicals such as LiPF6, which quickly breaks down into a rather nasty acid.

You are confusing boats with beer.

Well, mine too, I suppose. Had I not bought a boat I would have bought an aeroplane and that would have cost even more than the boat to maintain, so the boat has saved me money.

You are wrong on every count. OBVIOUSLY I omitted the 0 on both. A child of three could have worked that out. Most boats means most boats. It doesn't mean most narrowboats. You are wrong if you think your vents are high enough for all conditions you might encounter on the tidal Thames. That is why the PLA don't like narrowboats on their patch, and quite right too, given the appalling way in which so many are put together. Tyler Wilson have fitted their vents too low for a boat that could be used on big rivers or to cross the Wash, or even to go out on the Bristol Channel. They are not alone, but they are wrong to have done this. In making a boat that is not fit for the conditions it might easily encounter they have qualified as cowboys. If one of the most highly regarded boat builders is capable of this, God knows what the others are like. Finally, I cannot understand how a grown man could have misinterpreted my statement concerning near and 10". You really do need to go to remedial reading classes.

Hmm. There speaks an optimist.

Obviously I omitted a zero when I mentioned 25mm. You said: "most boats" don't have seacocks for hull openings below 250mm". What you mean is "most narrowboats". Or WBs. And I have no idea what makes a canal lockie an expert on fitness for crossing the channel. But anyway, despite your protestations, you appear to agree with me: "I'd want the engine vents higher up." Wise words. Definitely a cowboy. The vents should be higher. But I don't need to tell you that as you agree. I stated that 10" was the upper limit. Some people like to cross the Wash in a narrowboat. A bit risky, in my view, because if things turned nasty you could well ship quite a bit of water through your hole if it was on the windward side.

Seaworthiness is a word, and it means being fit (worthy) to go to sea. Bobbing about in the Bristol Channel on a fine day doesn't denote seaworthiness. It simply means the boat was safe enough in the prevailing conditions. The fact that you didn't sink on the tidal Thames is a matter for rejoicing, but nobody has suggested that an unseaworthy boat will sink every time it goes out. And I was talking about openings 25mm above the waterline, not 38mm, which is obviously better. Nonetheless, it's common enough to get a wave going along the side of the hull up to two feet, which on your boat would result in you taking on some water. Take a look at the pictures here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=49859&page=5 I have seen it considerably worse.

The points you make are what justify restrictions on narrowboats on the Thames. As you know, the utterly deplorable practice of putting vents so low in the hull has led to narrowboats sinking. The boats built by many cowboy "boat" builders are simply not seaworthy. As for not using seacocks, what happens if a pipe springs a leak? With a sea-cock, you simply close the valve. Without one, you sink. I know these may be academic arguments for those boats that never venture off a placid canal, but many do, and often their owners are blissfully unaware that they are sitting in a floating death-trap built by an ignoramus. The sort of person who doesn't know what a slipper stern is. You don't close them every time you go out. You close them if you develop a problem.

Hull holes below, at, or near the waterline should always have a seacock fitted. I interpret "near" as 10 inches/250mm.

Beecham's new HQ (now GSK) is one of the best new buildings in London, in my view. It's the one which heats and cools itself by taking water from the canal. I must go there one morning and see if it makes the canal freeze over when other parts haven't.

Yes, I think the Hound is wrong on this. Most converters say 5kW = 6.7hp. ETA: This is old news.

I see what you mean.

I think you are right to place a question mark after 150 watts. It would be poor value if that were all it produced.