IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
C&RT repeatedly say that "every kilometre of the system is walked by licence checkers every 14 days"
Given the boats I see that have been moored in the same place for more than a year, they can't be doing a very good job... 😞
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, peterboat said:
According to most on here, fat boats move the least so they should pay the least. also they dont only try to get away with opening one gate so do less damage to locks
Except the debate that's been running for pages is whether boats in marinas should pay the same as boats moving round the system, and the arguments are the same -- one side thinks they should pay the same regardless of canal use to give a level playing field, the other side thinks they should pay less because they don't use the canals. The only unifying factor is that most people seem to think that either they deserve to pay less or somebody else deserves to pay more... 😉
-
1 hour ago, cuthound said:
Any idea what the PM2.5 particulate emissions of an oil drip stove such as a Refleks might be. Google doesn't seem to have any answers.
I would imagine it to be less than a diesel engine as the combustion temperature and pressures will be lower., and these stoves are ideal for use in a boat, particularly if wood burning and/or multi-fuel stoves are banned in urban areas.
It might be better, or it might be worse, it depends on the exact combustion mechanism that generates the particles. Generally speaking lower temperature and pressure or less excess air means more smoke and bigger particles, but it all depends on how the burn happens.
The only way to be sure is to test them and compare them to the woodburning stoves that are causing the debate., but since PM2.5 emissions have only become a hot potato recently this information may not be available for relatively obscure devices like Refleks and Webasto.
-
14 minutes ago, peterboat said:
Actually it's far worse than what you think ian one cycle can be equivalent to thousands of Kilometres remind me who is having one of these heaters on his boat?
Which says what I said -- that they emit quite a lot of particles especially at startup, but these are about 10x bigger ("larger than 23nm") and far less dangerous than PM2.5 particles... 😉
If you compare a dirty heater to a clean petrol car, this is equivalent to a lot further driven than if you compare a clear heater to a dirty diesel car, hence the "dozens to thousands of km" quote.
And just FYI, the diesel heater on my boat is a pressure-jet one like domestic oil CH boilers, which are a lot cleaner than low-pressure Webastos and the like -- go and look up the emissions for oil CH if you don't believe me... 🙂
-
3 minutes ago, Goliath said:
I tell you what, shall we skip the dancing and go straight to the end where you call me names such as shit stirrer or asshole and then flounce off.
Id be happy with that.
😉
😉
😉
If the cap fits... 😉
-
2 minutes ago, Goliath said:
Then no need to feedback, now you know you’re view is not relevant
It's as relevant as yours. Possibly more so, since I seem to care about the future of the canals and you seem resigned to them going down the toilet. Or maybe that's an unfair assumption and I'm confusing you with somebody else with a similar attitude...
P.S. Your... 😉
-
7 minutes ago, frahkn said:
I have a marina mooring where I pay for twelve months although the boat is always out for about six of those months. This is a bit annoying but I don't feel it can be called "unfair" - it's what I agreed to in the contract.
I haven't thought about it much but I don't immediately see how I'm getting a "raw deal" compared to CCers. They don't pay £3,200 for a mooring but then again, they don't have a mooring.
Some of the ones I see certainly seem to *think* they have one, going by the amount of semi-permanent stuff they have on the towpath next to their non-mooring...
-
Just now, Goliath said:
you know what they say about assumptions.
I do indeed...
-
Just now, Goliath said:
it’s the principle though ain’t it,
why ask any Tom, Dick or Harry their views?
I agree 🙂
-
Just now, Goliath said:
?
strange thing to say…
why longer?
I may be making an invalid assumption about your age vs. mine... 😉
-
1 minute ago, Steilsteven said:
Done all that nonsense to death last time around, not going there again thank you.
You poked the bear... 😉
-
2 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:
20% is trivial in your book is it, funny how those who aren't faced with having to pay it are so fond of it.
But you're currently paying much less per square foot for your living space than somebody in a narrowboat, so surely this is just levelling out the playing field and making it "fairer"... 😉
-
8 minutes ago, Goliath said:
it won’t spoil my dayBut it’s ok you having an opinion on here about license fees but it’s another thing taking part regards the consultation.
you are not a license holder and should not be invited for feedback
and as a license holder I will happily question CRT why they feel the need to open up feedback to non license payers for opinions 👍
But as I told CART I *will* be a license holder shortly, certainly before any result of the consultation takes effect. and possibly for longer after that than you... 😉
-
2 minutes ago, peterboat said:
I posted the link Ian read it
I did read it -- so did you also go and read the details in the actual paper in Atmosphere?
What this showed was that diesel heaters like Webastos do produce a lot more (20x?) particulates than Euro 6 diesel or petrol vehicles -- from which the particulate emissions are already very low, and 20x very low is still far *far* lower than a woodburner. In addition they're mainly bigger particles (20nm-30nm) which are a lot less harmful than the PM2.5 particulates under discussion.
Close, but no banana... 😉
-
1 hour ago, Goliath said:
what a load of shyte thenmy 106 year old mom who don’t know what a boat is might as well give her point of view to CRT
I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I've asked to take part then... 😉
-
1 minute ago, MtB said:
Yep they obviously mean extra loading up the licence fee rises for CCers in particular. Very fair that would be in my opinion. Let's balance it up a bit eh? Us home moorers get a raw deal in comparison to CCers.
And probably wideboats too. Cue screams of protest from anyone who'll end up paying more so that others can pay less (relatively speaking)... 😞
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Goliath said:
yes, but some of the most vocal on here like yourself do not have a boat license which means you possibly won’t get your sayNot yet -- so I hope that makes you happy then... 😉
-
"The Trust is asking boaters for their views on whether increases should apply evenly to all boaters using the current boat licence fee structure, or whether it is fairer to apply higher increases to certain boaters in a way that reflects how they use the waterways and the higher costs of meeting their needs."
Well that sounds familiar -- and it includes the word "fairer", should keep everybody happy... 😉
-
"The Trust is asking boaters for their views on whether increases should apply evenly to all boaters using the current boat licence fee structure, or whether it is fairer to apply higher increases to certain boaters in a way that reflects how they use the waterways and the higher costs of meeting their needs."
Hang on, this sounds exactly like what has been discussed ad infinitum on another thread... 😉
-
7 minutes ago, booke23 said:
Ditto. I’ve been experimenting with many different kinds of manufactured smokeless coal this winter and even the poor ones produced much more heat than logs……even kiln dried logs don’t come close.
As a side note the table that @IanD posted earlier is very interesting. I had assumed that manufactured smokeless coal would be nearly as bad as wood as it can be very smoky and dirty until it properly lights up. Good to see it is significantly better than wood with regard to PM2.5. Another surprise is that pure Anthracite is slightly worse than manufactured smokeless…..as in my experience Anthracite burns with very cleanly with little to no smoke at all.
PM2.5 particulates are far too small to see or appear as smoke, which consists of much bigger particles. You can have a fuel that appears to be the same or better for smoke than another one but is worse for PM2.5, dry wood being a good example...
The PM2.5 woodburner pollution problem is only in urban areas which is where the numbers have increased rapidly in recent years, not houses (or boats) out in the countryside. Whether the government can find a way of drawing the lines which bans their lifestyle use in towns while allowing essential use to continue off-grid is going to be interesting... 😉
-
11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I find the "when did you stop beating your mother" efforts quite amusing.
For the record (and for the forth time) my position is -
It is unfair that anyone who does not bring a boat onto CRT waterways should have to pay licence fee.
- and I have never suggested that this unfairness can or should be corrected.
I can't understand why anyone should get themselves so worked up about this.The world is unfair. It's unfair that CART don't get enough money from the government. It's unfair that the ultra-rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.
In most cases, the people who make most noise about unfairness -- like, repeatedly posting about it on CWDF, for example -- think that it should be corrected.
Sometimes they even come up with suggestions about how this might be done, for example by making bigger differences between the license fees paid by different people on different boats in different places.
But according to your posts not you, it seems. Ho hum... 😉
-
30 minutes ago, buccaneer66 said:
I like the idea, but I think silly to and fro arguments between members would have to be removed in an area such as this.
Oh no they wouldn't... 😉
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, peterboat said:
I have an approved stove in my boat Ian, I burn well seasoned logs, ones that had to be chopped down because they were interfering with electric lines. The reality is nothing else other than a diesel stove works on a boat and we know that diesel is no better than wood in pollution stakes as its primary product from fossil fuels
My wood burner does preheat incoming air it works well
Yet again you're confusing CO2 emissions with PM2.5 pollution -- this has been pointed out to you several times but you keep on ignoring it... 😞
Woodburning is -- at least, over the long term -- far better than diesel for CO2 emissions, which is a long-term global problem (climate change).
Diesel is much less bad than woodburning for PM2.5 emissions, which is a shorter-term local problem which kills thousands of people in the UK every year.
-
47 minutes ago, magnetman said:
What a ridiculous comment !
Passive smoking compared with wood burning for heating?
Since when was smoking something that people have no choice about? I know addiction is bad but at the end of the day smoking is a choice. Heating a living space, in this country, is not something you can opt out of unless you want a very cold and very damp living space.
Don't be silly comparing space heating to smoking. They are totally different subjects.
One is an optional luxury the other is a basic need.
And that's an idiotic response... 😞
Passive smoking means the diseases and lung cancer inflicted -- without their consent -- by smokers *on other people*, including their own children. It's estimated that even today *after* the decline in smoking it kill around 10000 people in the UK every year -- again, government figures, not from some anti-tobacco organisation. This is pretty close to the estimated death toll from woodburners in the UK, the majority of which are used for lifestyle/affluence reasons, not essential heating -- meaning, they're an optional extra. All this has already been said in this thread, if you bothered to read it.
The proposed ban is for woodburners in urban areas where this is invariably the case, nobody there *has* to use one -- again, already posted many times. Houses and boats out in the sticks where pollution levels are low are unlikely to be affected by a ban -- but boats have a different problem, which is that they can move, which makes allowing woodburners on "country" boats difficult to enforce. Urban boats will certainly be affected by any ban.
Lifepo4 battery too cheap?
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
This is true for all batteries of all chemistries -- actually LFP are less prone to it than LA at high charge rates because the internal resistance is lower...