IanD
-
Posts
15,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
117
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
4 minutes ago, Wafi said:
Not sure I'd describe fitting a Wakespeed or equivalent as an "advanced alternator upgrade"; for anyone fitting lithium batteries, which seems to be the World and his wife these days, it's pretty much mandatory.
Except for all those who decide to keep the traditional dumb alternator charging a LA battery, and add the lithium battery in parallel with a long wire for protection... 😉
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:
I get the impression from your previous posts that you consider any MOSFET based BMS board made in China to be cheap and a bad idea? Most boaters cannot afford a £500+ RECBMS with its fancy isolation relay.
Nope, never said that -- obviously REC-BMS or Victron is better (especially for high-power use) but also *way* more expensive, so neither affordable or necessary for many boaters. As Will Prowse said, the BMS inside "drop-in" LFPs are a lot better than they used to be -- and almost certainly better than some DIY BMS put together and programmed by someone (not @nicknorman ! ) who got all their "knowledge" from YouTube... 😉
What I said is that using such a system with NMC cells -- especially ex-EV ones because they're cheap -- is a really bad idea, because you're totally reliant on the BMS to protect the cells, and if it doesn't (or is programmed wrongly) and they catch on fire that's probably bye-bye boat... 😞
With LFP cells/batteries the worst that's likely to happen is damage to the cells/battery -- expensive, but far less dangerous.
-
1 hour ago, PeterF said:
I have seen several reports on the Victron Community where an MPPT has failed and passed solar panel voltage through to the lithium.battery. With FET based BMS the over voltage can fail the FETs closed allowing overcharging of the cells. A LiFePO4 incident had swollen cells, obviously ruined but not leaking or burning. An NMC incident resulted in the batteries catching fire. I am sure I have posted the LiFePO4 incident on here before.
Which is exactly what you'd expect, and why NMC cells/batteries should *not* be used on boats -- or RVs, or anywhere else without the sophisticated integrated overvoltage/overcharging protection systems that EVs typically use***. And even there NMC battery fires happen, especially with physical damage -- though it has to be said, still far less often than ICE fires, and nobody clamours for petrol to be banned because of this... 😉
*** which is why using cheap ex-EV NMC cells/batteries on a boat -- often with a cheap DIY BMS/charge management system -- is a *really* bad idea... 😞
-
23 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Yes. I guess the principle that most people want to be legal is important here so enforcement would be less necessary if everyone knew what they were supposed to do.
The NBTA are quite good at getting clarity. If people claim not to understand what they are meant to be doing then someone will come along and tell them and the result is the existing behaviour becomes more difficult or even illegal.
It really does seem like the NBTA are working to make it harder to live on Boats off grid on land owned by government bodies or charities.
The river Wey is interesting as you basically can"t continuously cruise. Its not an option. If this happens on CRT canals the NBTA will be the first to moan but at the end of the day they will have been instrumental in causing the outcome.
Its politics not Boats.
I'm pretty sure most of the CMers/rule-benders are perfectly well aware of what both the spirit and the letter of the CC rules are, they just don't want to follow them because it doesn't suit their lifestyle -- claiming that clarity is the problem is just trying to shift the blame from themselves to CART... 😞
-
7 minutes ago, magnetman said:
I have no objections to any of it as I do not now and will not in the future have a vessel on CRT water. I've already paid the CRT well over a hundred grand in my time on the canals and not intending to spend any more.
I just think the admin of checking that people are correctly declaring what they have and what they are doing would be too complicated if there are multiple licence types.
It is not the calculator it is the admin work.
Some people will always look for loopholes that's how it works.
Or the navigation authority put in toll gates and charge per hour for remaining i a certain area.
Always worth remembering that when canals were individually operated by their respective Canal Companies there would have been stop locks and toll houses for exactly this purpose. That is how it was originally designed so it's not particularly ridiculous to suggest it might go that way again.
Basic economics dictates that something in high demand but low supply (urban waterways in London) should attract a higher price than the other one (rural waterways in the shires) which has a high supply and lower demand.
It is worth bearing in mind there is no PRN on canals so the CRT can close locks and physically prevent access if they want to.
This means that if done right with adequate security staff a toll system would potentially be quite easy to implement.
If the Aylesbury arm killing of a CRT operative has given them the willies then technology can step in.
How can you "fiddle" a license fee when CART already have information like boat length/width and type of license fee (HM or CC) which you tell them?
Geographical license fees do have some detection/enforcement issues, but the point is that you only need to have checkers on the high-cost/honeypot parts of the system.
Toll gates or charging for locks keep getting suggested, but a moment's thought shows they're simply not practical nowadays given manning costs -- the days of a badly-paid resident lockie/toll-collector in a peppercorn-rent BW canal cottage are long gone.
The one thing that would work and be difficult to fiddle and could charge in any number of ways would be trackers on boats, but too many people objet to this on privacy grounds for it ever to be feasible.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I do not see how 'geographical area' based licence fees would work - after all boats are mobile !
So everyone licences their boat in the lowest cost region. (And either lies about its location or immediatly moves it to the high-cost region where they really want to be)
That could only work if the boats have trackers fitted, or the boat owner is fitted with an electric shock collar which activates if he goes byond the licenced area boundary.
You do know that there are spotters out on the canals? Especially in the "high-cost" areas? 😉
-
41 minutes ago, Kingdom Isambard Brunel said:
I feel your pain.
I too find bootlace ferrules on flex conductors a waste of time, they just introduce another contact face and are not robust enough for my liking.
My standard solution is doubling back the conductor on itself after twisting, I find this gives a better grip especially if the conductor is now thick enough to fill the terminal.
I used to solder tin the ends but this is frowned on as the solder is soft and "may" allow the conductor to become loose, not a problem I have ever experienced though. I can not see the difference beween lightly tinning flex conductors prior to installation and the original manufactured tinning of the conductor.
I used to wire telephone exchange low voltage supplies at thousands of amps and if we had a terminal that was substantially oversize for the cable we would wrap the conductor with a strand or two of copper wire to bulk it up. But then we were tightening terminals with either Allan wrenches or spanners!
The problem with solder isn't that it's soft, it's that it creeps under stress -- "runs away" from the load, and I've certainly seen this happen. Stranded copper conductors once compressed into a terminal don't do this, so long as they're properly clamped in -- screw terminals where the screw bears directly on the conductors don't do this, you need ones with a plate/shim between the screw and the conductors.
Lever terminal blocks/connectors do a much better job than the old-type bare-screw ones often seen in chocblocks -- at least, the decent quality ones do... 😉
https://www.amazon.co.uk/flintronic-Lever-Nut-Connectors-Electrical-Terminals/dp/B0BCNTVV4S?th=1
-
14 minutes ago, magnetman said:
That gets too complicated.
It seems likely to me that the answer lies in increased regulation of the use of the towpath moorings. It's not all that complicated. Use of towpaths is probably what most enforcement is about.
It is easier to be unlicensed on a towpath than on a private recorded mooring. Not always but in general.
Wild West towpath situation.
Also interesting to see if there is a way to speed up the S8 process and get unlicensed Boats off the water and binned as fast as possible at low cost.
The navigation authority should ideally get rid of those who are challenging and undermining it's position as an authority. There should be low tolerance of unlicensed for a start. Get rid of them and do it yesterday.
Why is it complicated? Anyone with a calculator can work it out in seconds, and CART can calculate the license fee automatically from the data they have -- which could include things like boat length/width/age and type of license and geographical area, but for obvious reasons not personal data like @Alan de Enfield referred to -- hopefully in jest... 😉
Or is your objection that some people -- for example, a widebeam CCer in a new boat -- might end up paying a *much* higher license fee than today?
(while others would pay less, for example an old narrowboat with a home mooring...) -
11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
** or, suggested by someone prepared to accept the evidence as fact (According to the scientific papers & supported by documented evidence).
Scientific papers and documented evidence do indeed show what can happen when things go wrong, such as MIC eating through a hull. And yes, this has happened (at least a couple of times) to canal boats.
The debate is about how often such disasters actually happen on canal boats in real life, as compared to all the other things that can go horribly wrong with them -- in other words, a risk assessment.
Without this the papers and evidence are interesting but may not be worth worrying about. I'm sure a scientific paper would clearly show that a falling airliner striking a boat would sink it, but nobody worries about this.
So, how many documented cases of severe hull erosion due to MIC on the canals are there, and over what time period?
P.S. A couple of incidents in ten years puts this down at the same risk level as going over a weir because an anchor fails to set or boats sinking because of overplating, other risks where similar accusations of scaremongering have been made in the past... 😉
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MtB said:
I'm pretty sure they don't.
But I notice their prices spiralling. Seven years ago I took a mooring at £3k a year. The boat next to me gave me a right mouthful as they were paying £1,600 and feared me 'over-bidding' would lead to CRT putting theirs up the same amount. (I dunno if they ever did.) Three years later they'd ramped mine up to £3,900 and I gave it up. They re-let it for £5.5k according to another boater there who I know well.
Where on earth was that?
-
51 minutes ago, MtB said:
And now I think Will Prowse must have been reading this thread. YouTube has just pushed at me a new video of Will's making the exact same point!!
Hooray for Will Prowse!!! 🙂
That video should be made compulsory viewing for all the anti-lithium naysayers -- on CWDF or elsewhere -- who keep banging on about lithium battery fires and LFP being dangerous...
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Dave123 said:
This would make sense but one problem I can forsee is that boats would hog prime visitor moorings and make things harder for those boats that are still moving. This happened to some extent during lock down except that less boats were out and about. CRT might have to say that this doesn't apply to short stay moorings perhaps?
That might be a problem, as I said -- but which is worse for boats that want to move, finding prime visitor moorings full (a bit annoying?) or being unable to move at all because of no water (complete disaster)?
It's a case of choosing the least bad solution, the only good solution (more water!) is out of our hands... 😞
-
1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:
There is no reason an inland boater can not do the same if they are that worried. In this topic there is no question of the outlet being below the water line, just lower than the ISO/BSS demand/recommends
IIRC the ISO/BSS/RCR/whatever rules also specifically say that the "above waterline height" freeboard requirement (250mm?) does *not* apply to things like sink drains, so long as these are done in such a way that failure of one part doesn't cause a leak -- so no fragile hull fittings that can be knocked off (welded steel is fine) and any piping properly secured (e.g. double SS clamps).
The fact that some surveyors and BSS examiners -- and boatbuilders! -- seem to be unaware of this says a lot for the level of education about what the standards actually say... 😞
-
6 minutes ago, dogless said:
Not missing the point at all just disagreeing with it.
Rog
So you think it's better to keep the 14 day rule even if this increases water usage compared to temporarily relaxing it?
Genuine question -- if the answer is "yes", what's your reason for this? 🙂
-
20 minutes ago, Baralacha said:
Reading these replies I've decided against this manifold. Thanks for the replies, everyone. I think I'll be going double Gulper now, possibly with a foot switch below the new Belfast sink to activate it. I do like to have the skin fittings at the same height, just below the top rubbing strake. Raising the sink high enough to enable this brings it into conflict with the inside gunwale edge, hence the need to a pump.
I generally try to use this in my boat projects. Suppose the simplicity of having one waste pump caught my eye.
Point noted, it's your (unfortunate) experience and similar I was eliciting.
The new manifold was going to be as low as the shower Gulper, but all the extra piping for it to combine with the sink outlet is another reason to ditch this idea.
I don't understand why you're adding a pump to the sink to enable you to have a hull outlet that high above the waterline. So long as the drain from the sink is done securely (e.g. double stainless-steel clamps) it doesn't have to be far above the waterline (e.g. the 250mm that is often quoted) -- or indeed above it at all, though there shouldn't be any need for this even with a deep sink. That's from all points of view, BSS and common-sense... 😉
-
Lots of posts seem to be missing the point that was being made -- it's not whether people have a need/want to stay in one place for more than 14 days, the question was whether if this was temporarily extended some boaters (who don't feel the need to move, but have to under the 14 day rule) would choose to stay in one place for longer instead of moving through locks, and therefore save precious water for those who do want/need to move.
Yes it's possible that this would be seen as encouraging CMers who don't want to move, but in return the canals would have more water for CCers/hire boats who want/need to move, and be less likely to close due to water shortages.
Look at it the other way round -- if this isn't done and canals have more/earlier restrictions/closures as a result, are the moving boats going to say "Well I can't go anywhere, but at least we stopped those pesky CMers squatting for longer!" ?
Sound like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me... 😉
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, nicknorman said:
Yes I am not clear about this and it is a bit late to get my head around it but anyway I see I mis-wrote. What was actually written was degC/min-Ah. I'll edit my earlier cockup.
But that little detail aside (!) my point was about the differences between LFP and the more energy-dense chemistries, around a factor of 100.
Which is exactly the point that needs to keep on being made when people keep spreading FUD about lithium batteries being a fire risk (which is true for NCO/NMC etc!) while failing to realise that this is simply not true for LFP batteries, which if anything are safer than the LA batteries that everyone has been happy with for many years.
What also needs doing is educating insurers and standards bodies (including BSS) because it seems the same misunderstanding/failure to understand the difference also happens there. They can understand the big difference between diesel and petrol as far as safety is concerned, why can't they do the same for LFP and non-LFP lithium batteries?
-
3 hours ago, magnetman said:
Yes but it's not called a lock sill it's just one word. Sill or Cill. The second version can never be mistaken for anything else related to locks and water.
Although to be fair some lysdexic people might not see the difference between silt and cilt.
Also slit or clit... 😉
-
32 minutes ago, Mike Nicoll said:
I looked this up in my two Dictionaries Cill is not listed, but Sill is listed as being the shelf at the bottom of a window, the lower horizontal part of window or door frame.
The Thesaurus has Sill as foundation, firm base, footing, groundwork
That's ok if your dealing with a dyslectic Engineer!!
Or you're dealing with a dyslexic one... 😉
-
2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Considering how much NBTA terminology is used in the report I'd suggest that NBTA called a 3-line whip and a very high percentage of those that answered the questionnaire were non-moving- widebeam-itinerants
The percentage of responders who were CCers (27%) isn't massively different to the percentage of license-holders who are CCers (about 20%?), but it's certainly possible there was some NBTA "vote-stacking" going on to push their views forwards. But that's no different to what they do to get press attention out of all proportion with their numbers and support, is it? It's why poll response weighting is actually a good idea... 😉
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”
― Plato
-
4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
except- see my last paragraph.
Ah, I see the problem. However there would presumably be nothing stopping CART making the extension region-specific i.e. only in areas/canals with water shortages... 😉
(the NBTA would have difficulty claiming "discrimination" since "the circumstances" wouldn't apply to London -- though I expect that wouldn't stop them trying...)
-
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:
[snip]
(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
So "or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances" (i.e. severe water shortages) would cover it then?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DShK said:
Communicates the same thing, especially in a time when literacy rates were much lower. Linguistic prescriptivists will always be fighting a losing battle as it is not and never has been how language works - it evolves over time. So even if "Sill" was correct once, saying "Cill" is incorrect is as impotent as telling the tide to come no higher. I like using "heritage" terms but I would never tell someone that the words they use are wrong - if it communicates what it is trying to communicate appropriately.
This argument is all getting a bit cilly... 😉
-
1
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:
Firstly, no ulterior motive here as we were hoping to get onto the Ashby (currently on the South Oxford which is about to be shut to navigation).
It just makes sense to me to encourage all boaters, who don't need to move, to stay put for a while until levels recover.
This would help other boaters who do need to move (e.g those who have spent a lot of money booking hire boat holidays).
Only a thought. What does everyone think?
The problem I can see is that technically the 14 day rule is law. I'm not sure whether C&RT can officially override this?
Seems like a good idea, in this specific situation, for the reasons you say.
Though whether this ends up happening more regularly in future due to water shortages due to climate change is something to think about, because it could then end up changing the law de facto without legally changing the law, which is bound to cause legal problems... 😉
Commission Survey
in Waterways News & Press
Posted · Edited by IanD
In other words -- when CART asked boaters if they'd be willing and able to pay for something that is currently free, over 50% of respondents said "no". Not exactly surprising, methinks... 😉