rowland al
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by rowland al
-
-
14 hours ago, alan_fincher said:
... for Napton Locks, but boats like ours cannot go through one of them, because the sides have moved inwards, and it is too narrow.
.
If it’s the one we went through a few weeks ago, there was very limited clearance.
When you say “boats like ours” what do you mean specifically? Which part of the boat won’t go through?
-
10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
This is puzzling. My edit button stays for about 24 hours. I wonder why the difference.
Anyway, putting the amusement about the large text behind us for a sec, has C&RT been officially been asked why they think shutting one side down saves water.
You never know. they might open that side up again if they agree with some of you.
-
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
Why don’t you reduce it yourself? You posted it!
No edit button. ?
-
7 minutes ago, David Mack said:
When they read this they probably think they've come across a grumpy old man who has lost the argument and resorted to shouting.
I’d agree with you except that I have given a plausible explanation. For someone to conclude that it’s not plausuble they would need to come up with a decent counter argument rather than make subtle snide personal attacks.
By thr way, I’ve just seen what happens when you compose text in the Apple Notes app and cut and paste it directly here. Quite impressive! :D
Mods - feel free to reduce the text size.
-
9 hours ago, alan_fincher said:
I think the other problem is that most of the explanations being given as to why what CRT have done is a good idea are flawed.
I notice you have still avoided giving one that stands up to close scrutiny.Oh don't worry - I'm sure I know who 'rowland al' is, and what most of his former identities have been. He is not saying anything unexpected!
That explains the prejudice then.
Look guys, I’m passionate about the future of our canals. However I do wonder at times what members of the funding public make of what they read here.
Do they see a picture of calm and kindness, or a picture of grumpy old men who can’t tolerate anyone?
If we want to pass on this amazing heritage to the next generation we need to dump our prejudices and work together to protect the navigation.
-
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:
No, only people marked as "Moderator", "Site Crew" etc can do admin tasks, and I, (nor anybody "with me"), have ever had those privileges.
Anybody can make a request for moderators or other site crew to intervene in a thread, as you know, but whether they then do so, (or what they do) is their decision.
I can't understand why you think I would want to have invisibly removed, (and then subsequently reinstated!), a comment that I feel is fully justified. I would call it a criticism, (which was fully intended), not an insult (which wasn't, and which few but you would think it was, I think).I think the problem with some people is that they don’t want to read explanations because they know it all!
-
4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:
And all without the thread having been edited!
I think it is fair comment. Having both of each pair of locks operational should save water.
If they were really worried about it, rather than just paying lip service to water saving, they could reinstate the paddles that join each pair of chambers and used to allow one lock to be used as a side pond for the other. With those operational, (but omly if people had the wit to understand them and know how to use them), real water savings could be achieved.I just think it’s funny that here we are arguing about the subtleness of whether locking one side saves water and yet millions of gallons are being wasted due to lack of maintence. You couldn’t make it up.
BTW, Alan do you,or someone with you, have any admin privalages on this forum. Alternatively maybe a mod intervened and changed their mind?! Looking back I see you’ve managed to have a thread.locked after making an announcement.
-
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:
So having accused me or having removed an insult, you are not actually going to offer evidence that I did?
“This subtle nicety seems to be lost on CRT, (but to be fair also seems to be lost on some contributing to this thread........).“
This patronising comment had been removed when I first quoted it. Then ‘magically’ re-appeared. Ok, maybe Gremlins then...lol
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:Is the water actually wasted or lost though? Surely a drop in the pound above the flight results in a corresponding rise in the pound below. Both are very long pounds and there is at least one thread discussing low levels in the lower pound so the water probably doesnt get wasted over overflow weirs etc, it just gets pumped back up again overnight.
The issue is supposedly about water loss due to evaporation, only rain can balance that loss out. Back pumping obviously helps but fixing leaks would help a lot more!
-
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:
Having one side locked must surely increase water usage at quiet times because it increases the probability of a boatless lock having to be filled or emptied.
Again this is the point, C&RT are effectively reducing ‘quiet’ times by inducing queues.
Also don’t forget that even if both sides are in operation, there is stil a 25% chance of borh sides being set against you.
If say 10 boats were in a queue to come down when both sides are open and no boats were goung up, only thr first two boats have the possibility of not having to set the locks. However more water will be used in a hour as the queue can get through twice as quick using both sides.
Anyway, I still reckon the main objective is to piss boaters off! That appears to be working!
-
2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
And that's quite a serious possibility now it's been privatised. Plenty of errors in their records, no real deeds to houses any more - lots of scope for border disputes & lots more money for the lawyers. Assuming you can afford one.
The irony there is that when the Abbey National sent the paper deeds back to me when I owned a house many years ago, they sent me someone elses by mistake!
What was worse. despite us sending them to the rightful owners, they admitted they had ‘lost’ ours.
Mistakes happen, but they shouldn’t be ignored, excused or covered up. The latter actually being a criminal offence with regard to the data protection act.
-
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:
You have missed the point that at Hillmorton the twinned locks actually make it far more likely that one of a pair will be in your favour as you approach it, and will not need turning.
By having two some unbalanced working is more likely to be possible without filling or emptying a lock with no boat in it.
If the same number of boats ultimately go through, it is more likely that water will have been wasted if one of each pair of locks is padlocked out of use, not less likely.
This subtle nicety seems to be lost on CRT, (but to be fair also seems to be lost on some contributing to this thread........).
Locking one of each pair out of use will generally only save water if the resultant queues discourage people from going through at all. If it doesn't have that effect, then it may very well waste rather than save water.
Your 4th paragraoh subtily implies that C&RT (and some here) are mistaken (lost) WRT to how the Hillmorton locks work. As I have explained, shutting down one side DOES aave water by restricting the overall flow of boats. That’s the main benefit/inconvenience! .
Yes, I agree that when both sides are in operation, it speeds up the flow of boats (which is exactly the reason why they have shut one side down).
Don’t worry about it Alan, it’s getting late! Lol
-
5 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:
From where?
Not the post you have quoted, obviously, as a simple check will show you that it has not been edited.Interesting as it’s back in your original post, and no it’s not lost on C&RT or necessarily anyone here.
-
1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:
You have missed the point that at Hillmorton the twinned locks actually make it far more likely that one of a pair will be in your favour as you approach it, and will not need turning.
By having two some unbalanced working is more likely to be possible without filling or emptying a lock with no boat in it.
If the same number of boats ultimately go through, it is more likely that water will have been wasted if one of each pair of locks is padlocked out of use, not less likely.
.
The whole action of restricting movement through Hillmorton (hence the queues) is what’s saving water. Thats why C&RT have also been restricting the hours.
Water will still flow down when a boat coming the other way uses yours after you ascend.
As I also said, some peoole may also decide not to cruise due to the inconvenience.
I’m glad you removed the insult BTW.
-
On 26/08/2018 at 21:18, Arthur Marshall said:
To be honest, so what? They could do that by walking along the towpath, seeing a moored boat and driving it off. There was a yard owner on the Shroppie many years ago that flogged off almost all the boats moored there and legged it to Spain with the proceeds. Boats aren't secure, engines are easy to start and ownership in most cases impossible to prove. Nothing to do with CRT's records, which in view of the rest of their abilities, I wouldn't want to rely on for anything.
I’m guessing most peoplle would be a bit peeved off if they were chucked out of their home just because the data controller at the Land Registry made a mistake or got bribed to switch names.
TBH, I’m quite surprised by some of the views here but I suppose we all have different degrees of faith in these systems and the people running them.
-
50 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
Only if there are approx same numbers up and down at much the same time. Thus does not seem to ge as frequent as assumed.
Well I agree it may not work sometimes, but creating a bottleneck does increase the chances. Even one boat coming the other way saves more water than having to set a lock with no boat in it.
-
47 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
Has anyone attempted an explanation of how using only one lock saves water?
No seriously, queues increase the chance of a boat coming down using the water you sent into the lock to go up.
-
34 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
Has anyone attempted an explanation of how using only one lock saves water?
That’s easy. It reduces the amout of traffic as lots of people don’t like waiting.
-
12 minutes ago, Robbo said:
Already exists.
Do Midland Chandlers stock them? If so, how much? ;-)
-
11 minutes ago, Robbo said:
If you want to spare some roof space to solar that would be good. As your consumption is low you could get a good percentage of the charging done in winter as well. You can bulk charge in the morning, and let the solar do it stuff for absorption n the like.
Not by much looking at the Periodic table.
Pocket size nuclear power pack?
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
-
5 minutes ago, cuthound said:
Certainly in the early days of Valve Regulated Sealed Lead Acid batteries(1980 - 90), the plates had a high calcium content and performed very badly in the telecoms industry.
There were so many failures, that the watrranty claims virtually bankrupted the UK's biggest manufacturers, Chloride and Tungsten.
Most of the failures were caused by group bar corrosion, where the calcium/lead alloy plates joined the pure lead group bars.
This corrosion was never fully eliminated, and eventually the surviving VRSLA battery manufacturers reverted to pure lead for the plates on their higher quality batteries (except Rolls, who had always used thicker, pure lead plates than the other manufacturers).
Whether the oxygen and hydrogen recombining accelerated this corrosion in VRSLA's or whether it also happens in wet cells with lead/calcium alloyed plates I don't know.
Interesting. Whist I’m no expert in the technical history of lead acid based batteries, I do remember in the early 80s giving my car battery a good hammering most evenings with my stereo and CB radio (with burner).
I don’t ever recall having to replace batteries every 2 years. Mind you I probably changed cars more often, so not very scientific. ?
-
9 minutes ago, dmr said:
Another possible issue is plate construction. Something is usually added (alloyed) to the lead plates to strengthen them. Historically, and in Trojans etc, this will be Antimony. More recently starter batteries have used Calcium as this reduces water loss and allows the batteries to be sold as"maintenance free". I have read that Calcium does not cope as well with deeper cycling. It is possible that some leisure batteries have a similar plate thickness to starters but might still use Antimony which will give them more cycles.
Don't believe anything the Caravan people say, they produced a "technical" article claiming that the notorious Elecsols were good.
...............Dave
Horses for courses I suppose. It’s quite an interesting challenge trying to find the best solution for your own personal requirements and circumstances.
It would be quite cool to be able to just pull a ‘power pack’ out of a slot so you can take it down to the local pub to charge it up. It would also be good for that pack to fully charge up from the alternator in say an hour or two of engine running. Lithium seems the closest to that at the moment but I’m sure battery technology will move on once we consume all of the oil! ?
-
52 minutes ago, Robbo said:
There isn't any difference between starter and leisure batteries apart from liesures tend to be bigger in size and have a different sticker on the front. The insides are constructed the same, ie. for low DoD and high current requirements.
and ‘domestics’ are more expensive compared with equivalent capacity ‘starters’!
I read the caravan club conclusions about this after they cut some ‘domestics’ open.
I’m sure the plate area/size thing is still a factor in all this. Obviously the more surface area the more the plates can suck in energy and give it up in one go.
As for thinner plates getting buckled easier I don’t know, but it strikes me that the number of amps a starter battery has to give up when turning an engine over in the cold, ‘thinner’ plates seem to cope quite well!
-
51 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
This speaks a man without a 12v electric fridge, I reckon!
Or have you?
51 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:This speaks a man without a 12v electric fridge, I reckon!
Or have you?
Ax mentiined earlier, I have a gas fridge (or rather I run a 3 way on gas only). I appreciate that running it on 12v/240v would hammer ANY lead acid based battery more.
After what Robbo has just said, it does seem as though the debate beween starter batteries and ‘domestic’ batteries is more about the label! :-/
-
15 minutes ago, Robbo said:
If you still looking at Lithium (although with your usage they may not be that beneficial).
I'm looking at this system from Victron and it may be suitable for your needs as it's simpler setup to other BMS wiring's.
Basically it's a BMS 12/200 - It's the BMS, but has 3 connections. One for the LiFePO4 battery, one for the alternator/engine starter battery and one for the loads or other charging equipment like solar. It combines your batteries together when charging so you don't need any split charge relays. The only downside is that if you have any loads that are grounded to the hull (they should be none, but a car radio with aerial mounted on the hull probably is) then you'll need a DC-DC converter for these items. The smallest battery Victron do is 60ah with a charge rate upto 30amp. You will be looking at around £1100 for the battery and BMS tho.
https://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/Datasheet-BMS-12-200-EN.pdf
Thanks Robbo.
Yes, unfortunately expense is a large factor in this. £600 to replace 4 x leisure batteries every 2 years isn’t great either (thats what I started with years ago before trying 2 x Trojans then finally a single starter battery).
Hillmorton
in General Boating
Posted
Maybe device dependant? I’m using an older iPhone.
Quite often you get different settings for mobile devices, maybe that constant isn’t shared between mobile and laptop devices.