IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
4 minutes ago, n-baj said:
thanks fellas, you’ve given me food for thought. I’m planning lead acid and alternator into a b2b charger which is the alternator looked after but the solar controller is after the b2b charger so will not be feeding the lead acid. The solar controller and b2b charger has a lifepo4 setting so figured it’s compatible but if the bms stops charging when the battery is full then will that damage the solar controller despite the lithium setting?a third charging source is mains charger/inverter combi even though there’s no lithium setting I only use that with a generator in winter so charging at 14.4v setting and manually switch off when approaching full. On the very rare occasion I have access to shoreline I plan to discharge to around 50% soc and isolate the lithium from the system.
Thanks MtB however I’ve read from a couple of places that renology is not that good, having said that I’m planning to buy a renology b2b charger as several hundred for a sterling one is a mental price to me for a b2b charger. I’ve watched a couple of the Will Prose videos but felt like they’re adverts and he’s getting paid to give a good review (maybe I’m being unfair).
Thanks nicknorman, I also feel the discharge limit is too low, I was contemplating getting 2x 240ah but that’s £400 more.
If you're wanting to be able to run more than one normal domestic electrical appliance at a time then 200A maximum current (limited by the JBD BMS) isn't really enough, and anyway I wouldn't want to push a BMS/battery like this to their absolute maximum limit because they're never clear about how long this can be sustained for.
If you want to do this then instead of 2 parallel 12V batteries you'd be better using either 2 in series or the 24V 280Ah battery (where 200A is 4.8kW nominal) and something like a Victron Multiplus II 24/5000 inverter/charger -- high power inverters are cheaper at 24V anyway. But then you've got to deal with how to get the alternator to charge them...
Alternatively, lower your expectations of how much power you need... 😉
-
55 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
We’ve got a 3.5kw travelpower on a Beta 43. It makes about 2kw at idle, but that is very bad for the engine. By about 1200rpm it can make full output, although a bit higher rpm is better in order to reduce belt tension / crankshaft side load. If I was expecting 5kw output I think I’d want around 1400rpm. If you let the revs get too low the voltage dips at first, then I think eventually it would trip off though I’ve never had that happen.
To organise the source of power to the Victron you could use a manual ac changeover switch, or do as we do and have an automatic changeover such that shore power gets connected if it’s available, otherwise the travelpower is connected.
The curve I posted was for 5kW Travelpower as fitted to a Beta 43 (actual pulley sizes used by Beta), about 2.8kW at 1200rpm (minimum recommended speed for charging) but it needs 2000rpm to reach 5kW. The 3.5kW one has a curve which is higher at idle and flattens off at lower rpm, it's all to do with the winding ratios.
-
8 minutes ago, MrFish said:
One of the reasons i wanted the Multiplus II is the access to ESS via the Cerbo GX so it makes it easier to both monitor and change the settings. I will set up the AC input as a generator and start trying different levels of max current input. So far i have been unable to find any data for the Travelpower which shows a graph of voltage drop against current draw. In theory the TravelPower 5kw can provide 25A at 230v. However i am guessing that in practice the voltage will dip.
The curves I showed give TravelPower output power and current (assuming constant voltage) vs. engine rpm -- for a Beta 43 as it happens. The output power is the limit, it will try and maintain the voltage as you draw more current until it runs out of power, then I believe the voltage will drop while maintaining constant power (set by rpm).
If you continue to take the more power (or lower rpm) then when the voltage hits the AC low voltage threshold of the MP II it will stop charging. Then the voltage will go back up to 230V, at which point the MP II will turn on and start charging again, at which point the voltage will drop again...
-
7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
The document that Alan is refering to is, I think, the 2011 KPMG report commissioned by British Waterways to 'prove' that CRT funding was viable rather than document the backlog of maintenance work.
Alan is right about the total, however. In 2007, BW commissioned KPMG (again!) to write a Status Options review. This was designed to consider how BW might gain financial advantage from a different legal status.
The briefing document from James Froomberg states that in the early 2000´s BW had a safety critical backlog of about £300m but with additional government funding they had reduced that to £100m. Froomburg also said they had a backlog of £100m non safety critical work.
KPMG agreed the £200m backlog figure. The main takeaways from the report were that BW were underspending against its steady state model by £29m in England and Wales and that this would continue to grow without additional funding even if a different status was adopted.
The steady state model predicts how much needs to be spent to keep the system in condition that neither improving nor degrading. The underspend against the model is known as the funding gap.
Returning to the 2011 KPMG report, a BW director, Jim Stirling spent getting on for two years massaging the steady state model and KPMG were not allowed to check his figures.
Suffice to say the later KPMG report made no mention of the earlier one.
CRT attempted to get an extra £160m out of government to deal with its safety critical backlog and now say that this has increased to £200m.
I would estimate the total backlog today as about double the 2007 figure.Very possibly, hence my suggestion that something like a 50% funding increase for CART is needed -- given the steady-state shortfall (probably closer to £50M/year today given recent cost increases and inflation) which might eat up getting on for half this, it would still take maybe 10 years to catch up with the backlog...
This is what happens when you underfund infrastructure expenditure for *many* years... 😞
-
14 minutes ago, Goliath said:
Now back to the OP, and Granny Bitcoin:
We’re still waiting on Government/DEFRA and whether they’ll continue the grant or no, or whether hopefully they’ll UP the grant!
Decision should have been made in July but we now have to wait til Easter?
Until we get somebody like Barbara Castle making the decision, I think any significant increase in the government grant is unlikely in the extreme... 😞
https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/countryfile/2240834.how-barbara-castle-saved-our-canals/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/may/11/guardianobituaries.obituaries
"Now three new canals are being built, years of engineering deficiencies rectified, and there is a rededication of major features underway throughout the UK. From Scotland's Caledonian Canal to the majestic flight of locks at Devizes on the Kennet and Avon canal, waterside life and commercial development are surging back. There is even a unique hydraulic bridge about to be opened on a restored urban canal in Scotland. The Anderton lift is working again, raising boats in the northwest of England from river to canal.
It was Barbara Castle's particular vision that set the pattern which has retained 2,000 miles of these waterways and their special ambience."
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, MrFish said:
I am looking for guidance how to best use a TravelPower 5kw fitted onto a Beta 43. I want be be able to charge a 48v Battery bank (Leoch Lead Carbon 800ah 24 x 2v batteries in series) and put power into the Multiplus II 48/8000. Will this be possible? I would prefer not to have to buy a separate battery charger to connect the TravelPower to the batteries if it can be avoided.
In theory you should be able to connect the TravelPower into the AC input of the Multiplus. The problem is setting the Multiplus maximum current limit which determines how much power it can draw from the AC source, because it doesn't have any way to know how fast your engine is turning -- for the TravelPower to put out 5kW the engine needs to be running at well above tickover, probably at least 2000rpm (see attached plot).
If you set the MPII AC current limit to 22A this. will be fine if the engine is running fast enough, but if not and it tries to take more power than the TravelPower can generate (at lower rpm) the TravelPower output voltage will collapse. What happens then is guesswork, maybe the TravelPower shuts off entirely, maybe the MP II drops its current demand or stops charging if the voltage drops too much, maybe the TravelPower voltage then recovers and the MP II then loads it again until it drops out again...
The MP II AC input is really intended for a source -- mains or generator -- which can always provide up to the set current limit without collapsing, the TravelPower isn't like this.
You'll have a similar problem with any other battery charger.
-
The price looks good, but it's not clear from the data how (or if) these communicate with any charging system (e.g. alternator, inverter/charger, MPPT controllers) to stop charge at (say) 90% SoC and stop discharge at (say) 10% SoC, especially if there are multiple batteries in the system which need to be synchronised. If they do, great. If not, take care... 😉
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Sorry, that mi
There has never been a maintenance backlog analysis.
That's not what Alan just posted... 😉
-
9 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
I would also suggest that as, it seems, lithiums will accept as much electricity as any charge source can throw at it without limiting the charge like lead acids do, then the time to fully charged (or as full as you want) should be sooner given the same rated charger. So with lead acids and solar by noon the maximum charge is likely to have been reduced by the batteries, whereas with lithiums they will still be accepting whatever the solar can supply. I am not sure how much difference it makes, but I would expect it to be a lot for solar and engine charging. I acknowledge he won't get out more than he puts in, but lithiums should get the job done sooner, or to pit it another way, should make maximum use of the available charge whereas LAs make very poor us eof the charge.
Agreed -- IIRC those analyses posted from the JRC website have a total round-trip loss (charger + batteries + inverter) of about 15% which implies lithium batteries, because that's what most off-grid systems use nowadays.
Lead-acid will have worse performance than this especially since they need regular charging to 100% SoC and equalising, as well as having increased losses when charged or discharged at high rates.
The system as proposed simply won't work year-round even with lithium batteries, and even more so with lead-acid... 😞
-
17 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Break up the system and sell off good bits to vested interests such as marina owners ?
Nationalise (giggle where is the money giggle)
I have always assumed that the CRT was simply a stepping stone to full break up and privatisation of the system and that it was designed to fail. I'm terrible like that though. Hyper systemising.
A lot of demand for housing these days and population increase. You could use the land for eco homes and ecologically sound travel corridors (2wv not cars)
I think CART was -- like many other similar policies linked to Austerity -- a way to get the canals off the government's books and make them SEP (Somebody Else's Problem), so if things start going badly wrong the government can point the finger of blame elsewhere ("you failed to bring in massive charitable donations!"), regardless of the fact that them cutting funding -- or not increasing it -- is one major cause of the problems.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? 😞
11 minutes ago, Goliath said:It’d be helpful/interesting/ to see a reasonable run down of the maintenance backlog.
What does CRTs maintenance backlog include?
what is high priority and low priority on that list?I’m sure it could easily run into the £100M’s. Tag on a wish list and it’s billions.
Can anyone track down the maintenance backlog analysis I referred to? I've heard it mentioned many times but never seen it...
-
4 minutes ago, Goliath said:
I’m still waiting for someone to explain the source of the claimed/Legendary (I won’t say mythical) £100 million that’s needed to improve the waterways.
A lot of the premise here (on the forum) for a license hike is based on this £100M figure.
And the idea, here on the forum for some, is the license fee should cover it?
Is that £100M a CRT claim?or a forum claim?
it’s been a £100M for a long time, no one gonna add inflation to it?
how much is it a figure plucked from the air? (or not?)IIRC there was an analysis done quite a few years ago (maybe 10?) which estimated that the CART maintenance *backlog* was of the order of £100M, and presumably it's been increasing ever since and is bigger now.
It's equally obvious that CART are spending nowhere near enough on maintenance today (out of their >£200M annual budget) to stop the canals deteriorating further -- and that's before rapidly rising costs in the last few years which have made the gap between income and required expenditure even bigger, and now much higher inflation than previously.
Put these facts together and it's obvious that a pretty big increase is needed to catch up and reduce the backlog in a reasonable timescale, and that this is not going to be anywhere near as small as 10% or 20%, this simply won't make enough difference. To get such a big step change in the maintenance, it's not unreasonable to guess that CART income needs to go up by perhaps 50%, which is £100M per year.
If anyone has any better estimates then I'm sure everyone would love to see them, but I suspect that any much smaller number would just be wishful thinking... 😞
-
58 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I suggest you read the 2005(?) Oxera report and subsequent BW consultations. They are probably still lurking somewhere on the interweb. At the very least it might go some way to explain why what you are suggesting was not adopted more than a decade ago.
AFAIK the reason it wasn't adopted was screams of protest from boaters who would end up paying considerably more -- am I wrong or is this correct?
But if we're faced with the unavoidable fact that the average license fee has to go up (e.g. by 50%) to get more money for CART to maintain the system, the question is which is better -- keep the license fee system as is and raise the costs for everybody and risk driving poorer boaters off the canals, or change the fee structure to keep the cost increase down for the least well-off boaters (maybe to zero) while putting it up for well-off boaters (could be by 200% or more for a new wideboat in a honeypot area) to compensate.
In other words, make change equally painful for everyone -- which in reality means more painful for the poorest boaters -- or go by the principle that those with the broadest shoulders (and the most use of canal space i.e. boat square footage) should bear the heaviest load... 😉
-
1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:
But ability to pay is also correlated to purchase price - which will depend significantly on age and also other factors. eg does it have an engine? a BSSC? etc
All sorts of factors could be included if it makes sense to do so -- but the key is that the information needs to be simple to obtain (preferably already available to CART), not need a lot of manpower/cost to check, and be difficult to falsify. Which immediately eliminates any kind of toll collection...
The bigger the range of license fees -- from a small old narrowboat moored in the sticks owned by a lone pensioner up to a big spanking new wideboat moored in a honeypot owned by somebody with deep pockets -- the less painful it would be for the first category and the more painful it would be for the second category. Guess which one would make the most noise? 😉
-
3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
I want to reinforce what others have told you and beg that you read and digest the battery primer referred to.
On the face of what you have posted, whatever type or make of lead acid battery you buy you are likely to destroy them in a few weeks or maybe a month or two, so buy the cheapest because you will be throwing them away soon. The abilities of LiFePo4 lithium MIGHT give you a better chance of keeping them charged but the price for batteries and the required charge controller equipment may well cost several £1000.
The fundamental problem is he simply hasn't got enough power to run the loads, he needs either a *lot* more solar (which will still not be enough in winter), to run the engine for long periods, buy a generator, or get rid of the water maker...
-
12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Taking your figures, along with the 'guide' to only discharge your batteries to a maximim of 50%
4 (typical 100Ah) batteries will give you a 'guide' of a total daily discharge of 400 x 50 % = 200Ah
You water maker uses (every day) 200Ah.
1) what other batteries do you have to run all your other 12v appliances, recharge phones, computers, TV etc etc ?
The 4 batteries you plan to use will be killed within 'days'.
2) Do you really plan to rely solely on Solar ? You will need to provide at least 250Ah per day just to recharge the water maker batteries. That'd probably be about 6+ hours of engine running per day (every day) I very much doubt you'd average 25Ah out of 600w of solar and in the 5 months (Oct, Nov, Dec Jan, Feb) probably a vey small fraction of that.
Your plans are not going to work.
Agreed. From https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#api_5.2 assuming the only power source is 800W of solar panels with optimum tilt, and the only power use is the water maker:
-
10 hours ago, David Mack said:
I see Mike's crown has fallen over.
That's not a crown, Mike has bells on his underpants... 😉
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
A few hire companies have gone out of business over the past few years, which would imply that supply exceeded demand. I suspect a few more are teetering on the brink and another year of closures and emergency stoppages will finish off some more. Demand doesn't hold up well when you can't guarantee that a holiday will start and finish as planned. A lot of disgruntled people last year won't be back.
Much the same for the boat market - once people realise they're going to either be stuck in the marina all summer or have to leave their expensive toy at risk of vandalism on the towpath for months, it's going to plummet.
There have always been hire boat companies going out of business as long as I've been hiring boats, often the ones with lower boat and maintenance standards, but sometimes triggered by stoppages -- like Rosewood who I posted about being killed off by the L&L stoppages in 2010. I've certainly seen far more stoppages in recent years and have had to change plans sometimes, but nevertheless every time I've hired a boat (including last year) it's been difficult to find good-quality ones except by early booking -- yes there are often plenty of boats with late availability, but they're often the less desirable ones, which suggests that the "good" hire companies are still doing fine.
I'm sure that some disgruntled people won't be back after bad experiences, but against this holidays abroad are now more expensive and more hassle than they used to be thanks to a certain event -- and the weather here in summer is hotter thanks to another one -- so more people are looking for UK holidays.
Having said all that, the high Northern canals (L&L, Rochdale, HNC, Macclesfield, Peak Forest...) have been suffering from a *lot* of stoppages, usually as a result of poor maintenance, and many also have relatively low usage levels and lots of expensive locks, so are prime targets for closures if this comes to pass. Which would be a great shame and I really hope doesn't happen, but I fear might happen sooner or later unless CART get more money from somewhere... 😞
-
1 hour ago, Bee said:
Presumably the cost to hire boat companies will also be going up. The canals need people to take holidays on boats and also companies building, selling and hiring along the routes otherwise the system will become moribund. From time to time we look at the possibility of hiring a boat, out of season, even then it has become, frankly, shockingly expensive and if you get a week of solid rain it is just not worth the money. Owning or hiring a boat has become far too expensive. It is irrelevant whether it is 'fair' and we should pay more or 'unfair' and people complain and think about selling up and leaving. The fact is that CRT are being forced to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The canal system needs government funding and the chances of getting more are just about nil. The government holds the key to the future of the waterways and it is not looking good.
If hiring a boat is so unaffordably expensive, why do all the decent hire boats get booked up long in advance?
If owning a boat is so unaffordably expensive, why do all the decent boats for sale get snapped up almost immediately?
Hiring or buying boats isn't cheap, but it seems that demand -- for good ones -- exceeds supply, which isn't usually a sign that they're unaffordable as far as the market for either is concerned.
Just like houses, either to buy or rent... 😉
-
7 minutes ago, PD1964 said:
I know, but there are a lot of elderly living on just their combined pensions, I’m talking about the ones living on their boats, not the ones that pop down to the Marina for a G&T on the back deck with the Commodore.
And a lower license fee for older boats -- and people 🙂 -- would help them.
-
6 minutes ago, PD1964 said:
I know, but there are a lot of elderly living on just their combined pensions, I’m talking about the ones living on their boats, not the ones that pop down to the Marina for a G&T on the back deck with the Commodore.
There's no way of devising a licensing fee system which is "fair" to *everybody* without finding out a lot of information about them, their boat and their personal circumstances, which nobody is ever going to agree to.
Without this all you can do is weight the fee so that *on average* it's fairer, for example charging more for bigger/newer boats and maybe CCing, and a discount for (for example) pensioners. There will always be some "unfair" winners and losers, but right now it seems there are an awful lot of them, and would be even more with a flat fee increase.
It's no different to state pensions, or fuel allowances, or free/discounted travel -- some people will get it who don't need/deserve it, but it's still better than treating everyone the same.
-
9 minutes ago, MtB said:
I've always found the same. His hobby is low level provoking people whilst staying (just) within the posting guidelines. Very skilful at it.
Eventually got banned for it but re-registered a near-identical username. Odd howTeam Mod tolerate this as Dan says it's the person that gets banned not the unsername.
...and then blaming them for an argument that he provoked, hoping that other posters jump in on his side -- see the last couple of pages. And then gaslighting by making himself out to be the injured party... 😞
As you said, he's good at it -- he's done it multiple times with me (and others). Me, I've had enough of him, as far as I'm concerned he can shout insults into the void until he's blue in the face...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Midnight said:
License fees based on ability to pay just wouldn't work without a significant increase in processing staff costs. I suspect C&RT may be simply looking at increases across the board or even £x,000 registration fee for new boats, length x width as the EA do and 200% for continuous cruiser licenses. No solution is going to be easy but it's inevitable we will all get a pain in the wallet regardless of ability to pay.
Again, ability to pay as such -- means testing -- was not something I suggested, because of the difficulties in administering it and the obtrusiveness of asking people what their means are, which is why such things are unpopular.
Varying the fee with boat size (length*width) is trivially easy for CART to do, since they already have the information. It would also be very easy to make it vary with age of boat, on the principle that boat value drops over time -- again, this is making the fee track the value of the boat, at least approximately, so those on new boats pay more and those on old boats pay less -- which looks like a fair way to keep the fee increase down for people who are less well off and live on old boats. It's not perfect but it's "fairer" than not doing this, if you want to avoid pricing people off the canals.
A discount for pensioners is also easy to do, just like many other things in life which do this like entrances to venues -- and again it's not perfect because there are poor non-pensioners and rich pensioners, but on average it's still "fairer" than doing nothing, again to avoid pricing older people off the canals. Though of course there are an awful lot of pensioner boaters, so this would also put the cost up for non-pensioners... 🙂
A surcharge for "CCers/CMers" would also be very simple since this is part of the license anyway, and would do two things; the first is to make it less financially attractive for CMers compared to getting a home mooring, the second is more controversial because it means "real CCers" who actually cruise around the system pay more because they use more locks and water. Cue howls of protest from such boaters -- who I do have sympathy for.
Put all these together and it's not inevitable that everyone would get a "pain in the wallet", some people would pay the same (or maybe even less, depending on things like pensioner discount) -- but a significant number would pay more, and some would pay a *lot* more, and no doubt object that "it's not fair".
But making changes like this seem to be a lot "fairer" to me -- even though I'd end up paying a lot more! -- than a flat-rate rise on the existing fees. Any time a system is changed there are winners and losers, but that doesn't mean such changes are a bad idea.
-
1
-
-
Your (M_JG) definition of hypocrisy seems to be anyone who disagrees with you, especially me -- what's your problem?
You also seem to be incapable of having any discussion without resorting to personal attacks, especially when challenged.
So I can't be arsed engaging with you any more, you can go and join the likes of Welsh Cruiser and Higgs... 😞
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, M_JG said:
So what is this exactly?
An attempt to bring it to a halt?
You really do need to stand back and realise just how hypocritical you can be sometimes. Only you cannot see it it would seem.
As I said, it takes two.
Yes, I'm resisting the temptation to vomit out ad hominem attacks like you and several others -- though it's very tempting... 😞
You're the one who started them, and keeps on with them. I was trying to pour oil on troubled waters, you keep on throwing lighted matches back in. Accusing me of hypocrisy -- as usual, with no details -- is just another example.
Let's leave out the personal attacks and get back to the subject under discussion.
TravelPower 5kw and Multiplus II
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted · Edited by IanD
The power output vs. rpm came straight from the data sheet for the 5kW travelpower, and the pulley ratios/sizes used came straight from Beta (for travelpower on the Beta 43) so I'm confident that they're correct.
As I said, the 5kW unit has different windings (fewer turns of thicker wire) to allow higher maximum power (at higher rpm) but at the cost of reduced power at low rpm, like many high-power alternators. It's not really bad design, it's physics... 😉
And given that Beta recommend not running below 1200rpm for heavy-load battery charging -- which the Travelpower certainly qualifies as -- and it puts out 2.8kW here, I don't see a problem. Admittedly if you do want to run at 1200rpm for charging the 3.5kW unit (which reaches full power) is a better choice, only those with a very well-silenced engine would want to run at 2000rpm (to get 5kW) for any length of time.
Which is probably why the 3.5kW travelpower is more popular, and shows the pitfalls of just looking at a headline power number like 5kW and assuming this must be better than 3.5kW because it's bigger... 😉
It's also why -- before I decided to go hybrid -- I was planning to use 2 of the Iskra 24V alternators with a Wakespeed controller, cheaper and can output 4kW at 1200rpm -- and with lower side/belt load than a single high-power alternator or Travelpower. I spent a lot of time discussing all this with Beta and they were very helpful, and agreed that this was the best solution 🙂