IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
Fear not, it will all be censored out in the future.
I'm still getting to terms with Titty being changed to Tatty in the swallows and amazon's film.
Guy Gibson's dog in The Dambusters... 😞
-
12 minutes ago, MtB said:
Aha, some goalpost moving going on here! Yes using multiple drop ins adds complexity over using one the correct size in the first place.
There are few drop-ins big enough for the size of battery banks that a lot of canal boaters use, so using more than one drop-in is quite common.
There are also plenty of cheapo drop-ins which are not really up to the job for boats with relatively high currents, see here... (I know you've read it but it's worth posting again)
https://marinehowto.com/drop-in-lifepo4-be-an-educated-consumer/
-
4 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
They do look very nice, and maybe well suited in some environments. I'm not sure a boat is necessarily the best place for all those open circuit boards though.
You asked for examples -- the REC BMS is probably better suited for a boat, as you say.
Anyway you'd normally box in the batteries -- a good idea given the enormous short-circuit currents LFP can provide, especially when you drop a spanner on them... 😞
-
9 minutes ago, noddyboater said:
What about the huge amount of money that's wasted when maintenance actually takes place?
I was on a dredging job last year, down south. First day a massive crane arrives with a team of men, then all the kit arrives on trucks from up north - tug, hoppers, pontoon and 360 to sit on it, at a cost of many thousands (This is for 5 days work).
The job is based at a CRT yard, and guess what's sat in the water where the kit gets craned in?
A CRT tug, pair of hoppers and dredger.
Too many people are lining their pockets from the dwindling pot under the current system.
I would have thought that if CRT had staff and equipmant available and able to do the work they would have, since it would be cheaper -- but most inhouse staff have gone nowadays, and work like this is outsourced.
It's the standard way many companies work nowadays, get "expensive" full-time employees (pensions etc.) and equipment (maintenance, replacement etc.) off the books and just pay someone else to come in and do the work as needed.
Sometimes it saves money, sometimes it doesn't -- but what it does do is make the books look better, which is what the government wants to see, so it's what CART do... 😞
-
2 minutes ago, MtB said:
i was wondering the same. The bms inside drop-ins is perfectly good afaics, save for the lack of redundancyInside *some* drop-ins, yes. If there's more than one drop-in (either in series or parallel) then they need a way to synchronise the BMS inside each one; some (more expensive) ones do that, most don't. Ones that do often also allow external monitoring (e.g. via Bluetooth) and/or integration into the electrical system on the boat, for example controlling an inverter/charger and/or MPPT controllers.
https://www.victronenergy.com/live/battery_compatibility:start
-
12 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
What are you calling a proper BMS, and what is the typical cost of one?
Got any links?
One of the setups built with separate cells and which includes an LFP-specific BMS with active balancing -- plenty about, here are a couple of examples:
Unsurprisingly "proper" BMS like this cost more than cheap ones, but are a lot better at managing and protecting the cells, especially if they work together with the rest of the boat system.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Feeby100 said:
I have one in my moterhome and one on my narrow boat and they are fantastic plug in sim in and away you go best signal on site and marina
and that coming from some one that used and have got them not just reading about them
Didn't say it won't work, just that it's very expensive for what it is -- you can pay a lot less for something similar, or get something a lot better for the same money.
But for people who just want an off-the-shelf solution that does the job, I've no doubt they're fine... 😉
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Jon57 said:
Picture before and after please so we can see the damage 😁
Why on a bend, especially a boat that size? Why, oh why? 😞
-
24 minutes ago, peterboat said:
They are Alan also particulate matter as well I ess just chatting to Roger who repairs and services them. Some old Crems had an exemption but latterly he hasn't seen one without the filters.
But have the regs for crems caught up with recent findings about how nasty PM2.5 particulates are? They're *much* harder to filter out than visible smoke...
-
2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
The unknown answer is by how much? If they can get 4 years out of say a 280Ah drop in lithium battery at say 800 quid, that may be no where near what is achievable, but it's how comparable with the lead acid alternative that is more important, and the cost saving in charging them.
The facebook lot have put their faith totally in the BMS, and I guess not many people will be brave enough to admit they have wrecked their precious batteries.
With 4 cheapy 110Ah lead acids nearing 300 quid, with a typical lifespan of two years, the price gap, I would suggest is closing, and possibly worth the punt.
There are people on here with 4 year old lithium setups, but none that I know of have actually said they have killed them yet.
I am only a year into mine,so they need to last another few years to be as 'good' as the cheap LA batteries that I previously favoured.
Of course if a simple hybrid setup like this halves the life of an 800 quid LFP battery and you have to then replace it, it would have been a lot cheaper to use a proper BMS in the first place... 😉
Maybe this is the difference between 4 years life and 8 years (in which case it's probably a false economy), or the difference between 10 years and 20 years (which is so long anyway nobody will care) -- and obviously it depends on how intensively the battery is used, a full-time all-year-round liveaboard will work them much harder than a part-time or holiday boater.
-
22 minutes ago, BEngo said:
I understand that it was extremely slow to work and the conventional lock alongside continued to be available, so it was quicker to put a pair of boats through that in sequence than to work the two in parallel, especially in the middle of a group of boats where the steel lock would need to be filled and emptied (or vice versa).
The lack of use would seem to be corroborated by the dearth of photos of boats actually using it.
N
I have a vague memory of going through it back in the 70s and it being a slow PITA, but I might be imagining this and just saw it -- anyone know when it stopped being used?
-
5 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Excess signage = dumbing down.
Perhaps this is what is needed for canals at this stage.
The ducks will be saying woof !
Yes, the government is pretty dumb... 😉
-
1 hour ago, cheesegas said:
Yep, there's no smartness to it, it just reduces the field across the RPM range. It knows the RPM too, via the tacho take off so it's a shame it's not more configurable. I don't like Balmar regs for lithium (without external control) as they can't sense battery current, only a guess at alternator output done by working out how much field current is used to maintain a certain voltage.
Wakespeeds are £££ but I think I'll have to plump for it as you can configure the load at low RPMs..They're now officially supported by Victron too...
4 hours ago, rusty69 said:I get the impression every man and his dog has lithium batteries on their boat now. I reckon the trailblazers are those that installed them 5 years ago.
You just need to look on the 12V boating Facebook page to see hundreds of people adopting the hybrid approach and relying on the BMS and a long length of cable (unfused?) to do all the work.
Lots of people are doing this, and it works fine in the short term. In the long term it's almost certain to reduce battery life, which given their cost seems like unwise penny-pinching to me.
AFAIK none of the FB bods have had a hybrid setup running long enough for this to show up...
-
4 hours ago, Midnight said:
I think it's you who misses the point. Blue signs annoy boaters because the sheer number of them in places where they are not really going to do what they are intended to do. As an example Millbank Lock on the C&H (which you will pass through if your plans remain unchanged) is in a remote area but has 4 blue signs - one would do the job and the cost of the other three better used to fix the broken paddles along there. I wonder if your thoughts will change when you actually get a boat.
I'm not missing the point, the signs are mostly PR for the public (and the government), not intended to be useful for boaters. I probably see a lot more of them than you do since I cycle past multiple utterly pointless ones every week -- why have a sign saying "Congratulations, you've completed 275m of the xxxx Trail"? -- but then I'm not the intended audience either.
You might be right, I might change my mind when I get the boat because I'll see a lot fewer of them than I do now... 😉
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
The blue signs are displacement activity. CRT management know perfectly well they are presiding over a declining system and the relative pittance being wasted on blue signs would make no discernible difference if switched to the maintenance budget, but there would be no blue signs and it would look as though management was doing nothing. At least the blue signs make it look as though there is some form of life present in head office. This is their real function.
In the world of commerce it is often said that when a company which has been posting poor results and short of money suddenly re-paints the lines in the car park and redecorates reception and the gents toilets, the directors know the point of no return has been passed and the organisation is going bust. Very perceptive and true, and I read the forest of CRT blue signs in the same way.
I suspect the blue signs are to make it look like CART are doing something, but the target is the government -- it certainly isn't boaters. Parry pretty much admitted this in his address to boaters, they're to try and keep the grant going. The fact that this is pulling the wool over a gullible government's eyes and they're probably ignored by most of the public doesn't matter, spending maybe 0.1% of your budget on them to stop the government cutting far more than this off the grant is a bargain... 😉
-
10 hours ago, peterboat said:
I saw lots of piling sagging or collapsed into the waterways, in one place the towpath had gone, it had the appropriate faded shredded tape on sticks
I doubt that anyone thinks that CART are.doing a good job of maintaining the canals, the evidence is everywhere, and the situation has been getting worse for years.
I also doubt that anyone would put CART forwards as a shining example of a well-run and well-managed organisation, but they're hardly alone here. Many others have also fallen into similar traps like outsourcing and selling off assets, usually driven by the desire to save money because spending exceeds income.
But blaming these problems on things like blue signs is entirely missing the point. These may well be annoying to boaters but there is some kind of logic to them, the signs are an attempt by CART to meet the box-ticking mentality of a government which wants to see the grant to the canals being justified by making them attractive to non-boaters.
The fundamental problem for CART is lack of funds, combined by rising costs since "the good old days", not just due to price rises but also little-used and expensive to maintain additions to the system like the HNC and Rochdale. Combine this with a fall in the real value of the government grant, and you end up with a funding black hole.
Other than going bust and throwing the whole lot back at the government, CART have no easy way to fix this, but increasing license fees is one option to help close the funding gap. Protesting that "this isn't fair" is simply ignoring reality... 😞
If this is going to happen, to avoid driving less well-off boaters off the canals it would be better to try and change the way the fee is charged instead of applying a flat rate increase.
That's what the consultation is about, whether people like it or not.
-
1
-
-
Deleted. Don't rise to the bait...
-
14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I'm not sure how widebeam owners are intrinsically selfish, and even their rulebreaking appears an inconvenience rather than a serious irritation. Perhaps I just don't haunt the areas where they cause trouble.
CMers have, as someone pointed out above, been around since BW days, when there were so few they didn't matter, and have rather proliferated since for a number of reasons, uncontrolled by CRT, who probably can't afford to chase them all.
It's a bit like the government penalising people in two bed houses for their spare rooms when there aren't any one bedroom ones. The solution to both problems is obvious - in one case build more small houses and in the other provide affordable moorings. Both take a bit of investment (not much, for moorings) and action. Increasing mooring fees both unilaterally and via auctions isn't going to sort the problem, more likely to increase it. Increasing the number of residential moorings massively might.
I didn't say that all widebeam owners are selfish, but a minority of them have been causing significant inconvenience by mooring or moving in places not suitable for them -- as can be seen by the number of complaints about them on CWDF and elsewhere.
The same with CCers, many are blameless but a fair number are causing problems by ignoring CC rules, blocking visitor moorings and so on, especially in "honeypot" areas.
In both cases the problem is a selfish minority causing problems, and the blameless majority will suffer as a consequence... 😞
-
7 minutes ago, JDUK said:
Hi been doing and reading up a lot on wifi including updates in this group.
I’m kinda making a bee line to Maxview Roaming X due to good gain, router being 5g/4k streaming ready and to support heavy internet usage as I work from home using Ms teams/zoom a lot.
Wondered if anyone has fitted the Maxview dish on the slight curved narrow boat roof? Has anyone got a Maxview and is all good?
Keen to get a review as little is said about Maxview roaming on the Narrowboat world (very popular on campervans, caravans and motor boats).
thanks
It's a very expensive 5G-capable antenna combine with a low-end 4G CAT6 router (both 2x2 MIMO? -- not clear...), marketed at customers who don't realise this but want an off-the-shelf solution.
There are far better solutions for less money, I'm sure some will be suggested... 😉
-
1 hour ago, matty40s said:
You really should post on Narrowminded World , classic, throw money at blue signs and director bonuses but blame boaters for most of the cash shortage.
🥳
You're almost as bad as TWC for misinterpreting what people say... 😉
I clearly said that the real reason for the cash shortage is lack of government funding, but when it comes to how to share out any license fee increases the sections of the boating community which suffer most will be partly due to the selfish and rule-breaking behaviour of some -- not all! -- boaters (CMers and widebeam owners), and that other innocent boaters will probably suffer as a result. Exactly what part of that statement are you arguing with?
We've had the argument about blue signs and director bonuses before, and if you want to carry on ignoring the fact that the amount of money spent on these is negligible compared to other things -- and the funding shortfall -- then go ahead. Even if it lets you vent your anger, it won't make your argument any more convincing though... 😉
-
4 minutes ago, Tonka said:
Are they going to ban Crematorium's as they must produce particulates.
Roll on human composting... 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/19/human-composting-industry-deathcare
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
I expect they are still finessing the set of questions to elicit the largest number of supportive responses and minimise opportunities to be miserable and negative.
Oh!
I guess we'll see when the questionnaire is sent out, no-one seems to have had one yet.
From the website and the FAQs I think it's a done deal that the overall (average) license fee will go up significantly, due to record inflation and the shortfall in CART funding. The inflation part is just as fair as any other price rise, point the finger of blame at the causes of inflation, a large part of which is down to government mistakes -- and the funding shortfall is essentially their fault too. Blaming CART for all this is pointless as well as unfair... 😉
The question is how this increase will be distributed across boaters, and the FAQs strongly suggest that the increases will be larger on those who have either had a historical advantage in costs (e.g. area-based charging for widebeams) or boaters who are effectively abusing the system and the rules (e.g. surcharge for CCers) -- for which the blame falls on the increasing number who have been bending/ignoring the CC rules (the CMers) not the "real CCers" for who the rule was introduced many years ago, but who will also suffer as a consequence of CMers behaviour.
Inappropriate use/mooring of widebeams on canals where they're simply not suitable may also be another reason for these to be hit -- and yet again those who *are* on suitable canals like Peter will suffer as a consequence.
In both these cases the boaters who have been selfishly abusing the system are largely to blame, and ire should be directed at them not CART -- whose basic problem is not blue signs or executive bonuses but having too much to do and not enough money to do it with... 😞
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, MtB said:
All this chat about float charging on lithiums is asking for trouble AIUI. As Nick says, one needs to STOP charging when any one cell gets up to 3.65V.
For the most comprehensive seemingly knowledgable article I've ever read about LiFePO4 batteries in boats, this chap is well worth reading. The link has not been posted on this forum for a while now so it's time it had another outing.
https://nordkyndesign.com/protection-and-management-of-marine-lithium-battery-banks/
Li batts in boats still strike me as immature technology, mainly because Li batts like to be cycled over a wide range (not kept well charged like LA batts) and most Li users still seem to have the LA mentality engaged and write in ways that imply they keep their Li batts constantly charged. E.g. using a charger with a 'float' setting. One really should not be doing this. Charge them, then discharge them low before re-charging almost fully. Don't put them on float so they get recharged after a small discharge.
What the boating world needs is some devices that monitor the SOC somehow and keep the charge sources disconnected until it falls to a low value, then reconnects until charged to a high SOC, then disconnects, etc etc.
The bit in bold is why you really *do* need a BMS which monitors each cell, and is capable of top-balancing the bank -- batteries with good built-in BMS do this, as do high-quality external BMS, but not all do.
Given how rapidly cell voltage rises around 100% SoC, if you only measure the overall battery voltage and stop charging using this (e.g. at 14.6V) then if there's any cell imbalance this could be reached with one cell well above 3.65V (e.g. 3.8V) and the others below it (e.g. 3.6V). This shouldn't happen with well-matched Grade A cells (or most good quality drop-in batteries) but is definitely a risk with a DIY system or cheap no-name drop-ins.
Keeping the batteries at a high float voltage for long periods (e.g. 100% SoC or 14.6V) is *very* strongly advised against if you don't want to reduce their lifetime.
Another excellent source of LFP advice is here:
https://marinehowto.com/drop-in-lifepo4-be-an-educated-consumer/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MtB said:
Definition of an oxymoron;
"Someone who didn't go to Cambridge"
😁
I went to Cambridge -- trust me, there are morons there too... 😉
-
1
-
Spammers
in Technical & Account Support
Posted
Not just in the political forum, unfortunately... 😞