baz gimson

they also have a yard in Stoke on Trent...we had one of their new Grove GMK 80 ton cranes on site a few weeks ago...talking to the driver and getting a guided tour of the machine revealed that they are fitted with trackers, also the machine is computer controlled and feeds all the lift/operation data back to the manufacturers as it's working. This is to identify problems and also if the safety limits have been exceeded which invalidates the warranty. So the idea that a driver will be doing a cash in hand job on the side is highly unlikely.

I would suggest Bolinder engines were designed for marine use and their adoption in narrowboats was just an adaptation of an existing engine in fact this link http://history.valtra.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=5%3A1844-bolinderin-kuuluisat-moottorit〈=en says

in a WW 1 tank no...in a WW 2 or post war tank, no...read my previous post for the facts of this common myth.

No. The tanks had forced air ventilation From here........http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/140209-more-tank-crew-killed-by-carbon-monoxide/&page=1 if you bother to read the linked thread above, the CO deaths are shown to be a popular myth

Hey Chubby...did you look at the links I posted? The Victory is a primus stove in a metal enclosure. The Taylor uses a Primus burner . Both need pressurised fuel to work. The victory just heats the air and exhausts the combustion gas into the room, the flue isnt doing much flueing. The Taylor on the other hand heats a metal gauze element in the chimney which radiates the heat from the metal enclosure, the combustion gases go out of the flue. look at the pics in the classic camp stove links I posted to see what I mean. You would get exactley the same effect as the victory if you just ran a primus stove in the room.