Mikexx
-
Posts
580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Mikexx
-
-
13 minutes ago, NB Saturn said:
Ortomarine would say differently - according to them using polycarb backing sheet as an insulator increases efficiency by a worthwhile %. They’ve built enough boats now with flexi panels that I believe them. This is how they’re fitted on my (under construction) new boat - I’ll do so measurements with an IR thermometer of roof vs panel temp next time I’m down there, although the sun seems to have gone AWOL now. You can still walk on them, you don’t lose that.
I have difficulty believing that claim.
The actual temperature seen by an IR thermometer is very dependent on emissivity and the wavelength of the sensor. Same goes for paint where the attained temperature in sunlight is also very dependent on colour. We ought to be painting our roofs white to keep things cool!
A contact thermocouple might give more consistent measurements.
-
5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
My friend did not class his bill for hull repairs as marginal, that was without the cost of converting to negative earth. I suppose it all depends on how you view risk.
If the corrosion was external, then this would have had nothing to do with battery DC polarity but down to other causes, such as shore line earth bonding or lack of appropriate anodes.
-
3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:
All I can say in answer is that this was a common saying when I was working on the Thames, and a friend with an older steel cruiser found it had perforated in a number of places. His surveyor insisted t be converted to negative earth. I also know that the change on vehicles from negative to positive earth seemed to have a beneficial effect on body corrosion.
Neither is proof positive earth is bad for metal boats, but is it worth the risk.
As an electrical engineer I understand that anything positive wrt to an electrolyte is bad news where the metal will simply be eaten away through oxidisation corrosion.
But given the limited areas that a wire electrode can enter an electrolyte such as water it is rare that there would be any internal galvanic corrosion on a boat. In the explanation by Gibbo the most likely time this could occur would be a frayed wire, and certainly no one would be any the wiser. I do therefore agree with you that a negative earth is the ideal but it's a marginal advantage.
On cars there are many external connections and surfaces that are open to the elements hence the preference of a negative earth. The irony is that a coil with a positive earth is deemed more efficient to generate a spark with the hot electrode being negative.
-
On 01/05/2025 at 15:28, Tony Brooks said:
Very important information. If this is a steel or other metal boat, then you really should convert it to negative earth. At present, you run the risk of hull perforation caused by electrical corrosion. No worry for wooden or GRP boat.
I'm going to bite. While it is ideal for the hull to be negative wrt to the surrounding water (hence why we have anodes), what difference will being a negative earth be over a positive earth? Or are we talking internal corrosion within the boat itself?
-
1 hour ago, Steve9007 said:
yes i have one panel with them actual ones fitted and they are really strong held on the roof, seems a better idea than drilling into a nice roof and would go well with the mounts you referenced
Wish I was aware of them a few years ago when I fitted the panels.
You still need a hole for the cable of course but the roof will look less like a pepper pot!
-
17 minutes ago, Steve9007 said:
maybe a crazy suggestion but are there strong enough magnets that will hold the feet down instead of screwing into the roof, one of my existing old panels is held in place by large rounded magnets on each corner
I used the mounts in the link I provided earlier. A centre bracket is bolted to the roof. The outside rail is free to fall on the roof and in my opinions is unsatisfactory as it will damage the roof paintwork, hence why I added the feet at each corner.
I do like the magnetic idea, perhaps using something like these:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/CDIYTOOL-Neodymium-Magnets-Threaded-Non-Slip/dp/B0BY19LWJR
-
32 minutes ago, Steve9007 said:
not seen these mounts and look even better than the upright triangle ones . but i have one mushroom vent in the way, so wondering if it will still sit flat and cover the vent which i don't mind, its just where i want the panels, the second panel has no obstruction so is all good.
I added feet that gave some clearance and protected the top paintwork:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Uni-Fine-Adjustable-Stainless-Regulating-Furniture/dp/B085T36SG2
I think I was able to miss my mushrooms.
-
1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:
The Bridge under the M5 at Droitwich. Actually a repurposed river culvert. Air draft varies with river level from tight to impossible. Many others.
That's why I got these tilting solar mounts:
https://midsummerenergy.co.uk/buy/solar-panel-mounting/Narrowboat-Tilt-Mount
There aren't many inches clearance under the M5.
-
18 hours ago, thematt said:
Thanks so much folks! Having carefully taken a utility blade to this, I can tell the surface isn't very flat especially around the holes. Short of sanding it flat again am I out of luck?
I wouldn't sand anything that would make the steel thinner. Best knock back into position as per other posts.
I recall having a vehicle that used elongated spreader washers including some corner ones to reduce sump distortion. You can get generic oval washers although their size will be critical to fit between the lips on the sump.
An example:
https://www.groveco.co.uk/contents/en-uk/p1475.html
eBay also have loads and the sellers may be more compliant in providing measure dimensions. Moss also sell them for MG timings covers
However after looking at your photo of your sump, given the indents I would go for the largest plane washer that would fit in the space.
-
15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
We had our house built in 2005/6 and it was at zero rated VAT - and it was nothing to do with being disabled.
I never said it was when it came to homes. I feel you have taken my quote entirely out of context. In fact the sentence was about a motorhome responding to a post by the OP that I even quoted in my reply.
-
4 hours ago, tonymoo said:
I have successfully reclaimed in full the VAT charged on my self-build house and also the purchase of a new motorhome.
HMRC are very clear about what is Zero Rate VAT. To my knowledge it is zero rated only if it is adapted for disabled use. Therefore I am surprised about your claim or it was a while ago.
I suppose there is nothing to stop you having the vehicle modified, say with a chair lift as long as it conforms to HMRC criteria. However the application form VAT1615A requires (note even HMRC can't spell):
The disabled person named in this declaration usually uses a wheelchair for their mobility and the permanently and substantially adapted vehicle is for their personal use.
And
The disabled wheelchair user named in this declaration is chronicaly sick or has a disabling condition (provide brief details below) and the adaption of the vehicle is necessary because of this condition
6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:No it is not - you are paying for zero rated goods - you are not 'avoiding' paying the VAT
Quite, as per definition of avoidance. I'm sure those using the old K2 schemes would like you to think they are not 'avoiding paying' tax too.
-
58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Be very careful how you phrase your statements - the 'avoidance' (evasion) of tax is illegal
I think you are maybe talking about the fact that things can be Zero rated. When we had our house built all of the goods we purchased and the labour were zero VAT zero rated - not VAT exempt.
My understanding is that 'avoidance' is a term for legally not paying a tax using recognised tax rules. Some avoidance schemes may be a sham but new self-build houses are certainly a genuine way of avoiding paying VAT, or should I say being able to claim the VAT back.
Tax evasion is just that, not paying taxes that are due by illicit means, normally not declaring the income.
56 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:Boat has to be a certain size then it is possible google Colin Stone vat for the relevant case. Most narrowboats and wide beams too small. Different rules for houseboats I.E. no engine.
A butty that is without an engine towed to a mooring would fulfil the rules of a houseboat. That could then be sold by the maker with 0% VAT.
The new owner wouldn't normally be VAT registered and so anything they do would not be subject to a VAT inclusive price if they sold it on.
So, if the rear of the boat had some swim plates[1] and an engine added at a later date, while those costs would be subject to VAT the original VAT claimed by the boat builder wouldn't be charged to the new boat owner.
Not sure if that would still make economic sense unless you were adding a classic engine to the 'house-boat'.
[1] I added this as the boat must not be readily adaptable to accept a form of propulsion so perhaps shouldn't have swim plates. I guess depends on how many butties have swim-plates.
-
On 12/01/2025 at 14:47, Tam & Di said:
You need nothing to cross the Channel, and all you need on continental inland waterways is an ICC with inland endorsement. Your simplest/cheapest way to do that would be to do an RYA Inland Helmsman course at a school local to you, and then a test of the CEVNI rules. Colour blindness is irrelevant on the inland course, and they might not even ask you about it unless something came up to give them concern, but it is possible that you have to swear you have good eyesight on the application form. The inland helmsman course would not be of much direct practical use, but you'd get lock experience if you've not had that before. I know 2 or 3 colour-blind barge skippers in France who get by OK. Buoyage almost always uses shapes as well as colour, but red/green traffic lights might be more difficult; they are common on most locks and some bridges. If you can find a CEVNI test sample on-line you'd be able to see if it would give you any problem. If you can drive OK in the UK you'd not have a lot of difficulty with lights at locks.
Is there anything stopping you carrying red and green filters in your pocket as visual aids when coming across coloured lights? After all if they allow glasses to correct sight then ....................
-
22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
Other things change, when I was a kid lorries only did 30 mph and vans 40 mph, they had chunky tyres not ones designed for 110 mph down the motor way, likewise most cars had cross ply with a sharp tread and a poor weight to power ratio.
Did you forgot to mention the man with a red flag in front of lorries? 🙂
-
Most commercial holiday narrowboats are stuck at their base outside of their holiday season so would have thought a 6 month hire October to end April would have been doable, especially as some hire-bases have limited moorings. The downside would be the winter stoppages limiting travel, in addition to to unplanned closures.
-
10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:
Not sure a VSR would work to limit the charging current drawn by the lithium battery, that is where the B2B comes in. I agree with what you say, keeps it simple.
They seem to kick in around 13.8V and disconnect below 13V. I'm not sure how accurate they are.Some claim to be 'software controlled'. It does generally ensure the starter battery gets a chunk of current first.
The usual technique top limit current to lithium batteries is to use a long cable of a cross-sectional area to cope with the target current to introduce some resistance in the charging circuit. Some say that method is a bodge and frown upon it. If a suitably sized cable is used and clipped appropriately I don't see the issue. In practice the length chosen by trial and error and it's not very long.
-
On 16/10/2024 at 19:40, The Alchemist said:
Yes. Your diagram pretty much displays my set up. I was given a similar diagram of the recommended layout for a lithium battery system when I purchased it from the supplier and it included a lead acid battery in the diagram. I assumed it was to encourage the alternator to continue putting out a charge into the system and so that when the lithium battery was at full charge the dc to dc charger would cut out allowing the lead acid to fully charged as a means to kickstart the dc to dc charger when the system starts. I never questioned the reason behind it!
You are correct in that when Lithium battery's BMS system disconnects the batteries you still need to present a load to prevent the alternator output voltage from climbing to high values and destroying anything connected to it.
However you already have the starter battery that will limit voltage and present a load in these circumstance. So there is no need for the second LA leisure battery. It's one time a split charge relay or voltage sensitive relay or a DC to DC converter should work well with a single alternator.
I, for instance, have a second alternator and should I change to lithium I would leave a lead acid for those occasions where load dumps would destroy anything connected to the alternator, and quite possibly the alternator itself.
-
1 hour ago, The Alchemist said:
The split chargers purpose is to charge two lead acid battery's, the primary is the starter battery and the secondary is the leisure battery. The lithium battery has to have a lead acid battery between itself and the alternator as the output of the alternator is not adequate for lithium batteries.
The dc to dc charger then adjusts the output from the lead acid battery to the charge requirements of the lithium battery so that they are then charged through the system.
Can you confirm the wiring is like:
In which case there isn't a need for the LA leisure battery. Given the DC-DC load is within the alternator capacity I doubt the alternator would suffer any damage from extended charging.
-
59 minutes ago, Peugeot 106 said:
Note I’d be trying what Tony suggests first before I contacted anyone unless there is something else you are not telling him about. Tony is the BMC expert and generally correct with his diagnosis
Likewise. My first thought on reading the OP was to change the rocker cover gasket and go from there.
My only concern is if someone has been hand-fisted on the past. The covers can distort and I would like to be certain the cover is securely clamped as the retaining bolts have limited travel. If I was worried I might change the rubbers too unless they're in very good condition.
-
9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I wonder if the CRT checkers do the Severn? there is no towpath to cycle up and most of the moorings other than at locks are not owned by them
For my last extended weekend trip on the Severn a year or so ago I can confirm that no records were kept, even from going through the manned locks. I was advised to take photos if I ever need to provide evidence of where I had been.
I had previously thought the manned lock operators kept records?
-
12 minutes ago, MtB said:
Hardly, as home moorers already pay CRT a ton of money more than CMers.
Yes, but not to CaRT; or any other charity.
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:The same as the discount for a Butty, for a vintage boat, for an electric boat, for paying early etc etc are all 'subsidies' ??
Quite possibly. You bite too easily!
-
17 minutes ago, MtB said:
I see it as a home moorer discount.
Isn't that like a subsidy?
-
4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
Doesn't work like that. The judge Alan keeps quoting (along with everyone who wants to avoid paying their way) was talking obvious nonsense, and his ruling is not binding and sets no precedent. It's also worth bearing mind the idiot boater he was talking about lost his boat.
It's all very well trying to be cute, but it can turn out a bit expensive.
Oh, and CRT have it written into licence T&Cs that the CC rules apply to home moorers when they are off their mooring, so good luck with that one. Take them to court if you like...
I really have no intention to create any waves with CaRT and the judiciary.
It was more the interest angle, especially as there's now a CCer tax.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
A Judge also stated that a boat with a home mooring never had to use it, and they could simply shuffle about (A-B-A-B......) and under the existing laws C&RT could do nothing about it
That is nominally what I though. Does anyone know of a very cheap mooring? Can be anywhere of course.
How many boats can then use the same 'home mooring' spot if they never actually use the 'home mooring'?
Solar Panel mounts
in Living Afloat
Posted
Like IanD I am very sceptical. Solar panels are dark to the eye so highly absorptive of sunlight. The efficiency for flexible solar panels is a nominal 15% For rigid panels probably 20%. The rest of the solar power falling onto the panel will be converted directly to heat that will escape by a combination of thermal radiation, air cooling and conduction to a roof. Having a layer of insulation below a flexible panel seems the worst of all worlds.