Wittenham

thanks all, very useful. For belt and braces, I will do this, as well: run a 4mm2 cable from the consumer unit earth busbar to the hull bonding point adjacent to but not concurrent with the main D.C. -ve bond.

Thank you for that. To be sure I understand, the bible of Smartgauge says: AC system and DC system If both electrical systems are installed then all of the above applies. i.e. it is imperative that both systems be bonded to the hull. There is also another scenario in this case to further convince the doubters. Assume the AC system is bonded to the hull but the DC system is not. Some equipment is connected to both systems. This sounds rare - in actual fact it isn't, dual voltage fridges, battery chargers and inverters are all connected to both systems. A fault in one of these items could cause AC mains to be presented to the DC side. If both systems are bonded to the hull, this will instantly cause the incoming fuses or circuit breakers to blow. If one of the systems is isolated from the hull this will not happen. The result will be that the DC system (which we all assume is safe to touch, and which usually has components with insulation rated for about 50 volts) will be sat at 230 volts with respect to the hull or the other electrical system. Clearly this is highly dangerous. In summary, whatever electrical system is fitted, it is imperative that the system is bonded to the hull. Is the logic that because the AC and DC meet at the Multiplus, the single earth to the hull coming from that box is sufficient? Does the answer change if I connect the Multiplus to shore power?

I have the set up below; the plan is to have the generator recharge batteries. It looks like I am about to get a sunny spot on Agenda 21, so will add solar in the near-ish future. Most of the boat, which does not have an engine, will run off DC, but the inverter will supply AC as needed. The fridge will be one of the 'needed'. I have a Victron Multiplus and have earthed it to the hull. Do I also need to earth the AC separately? thanks in advance, greg

when one of our party had a dietary requirement that needed refrigerating, i bought one of these for a back country canoe trip in Canada: https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/yeti-hopper-flip-soft-cooler The sales person said it would keep food cold for a week. He lied. But if you don't need to carry it, there are other models available as well, like https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/Cabelas-Polar-Cap-Equalizer-40-Quart-Cooler.

I cannot hear her name without thinking of this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/doris-day-petition-hits-the-mark-1.209426 A populist party in Canada made a commitment to hold a national referendum on any issue that received at least 350K votes. The party leader's name was Stockwell Day. The first issue to pass that threshold was for Stockwell to change his first name to Doris... And who said Canadians don't have a sense of humour? Probably that Boaty McBoatface character.

any particular reason to do that? Is it simply mindless vandalism? I suppose if I had my hands on a battery powered angle grinder, and was so inclined, I would find many attractive targets without having to walk down the towpath.

would it help if I used smaller words? ...now a more considered response. The point i was trying to make in not too many words is that it is generally believed to be a fact that human activity is causing climate change. And that is about as much agreement as there is. From there, it only gets less clear, meaning it is very difficult to get the political and societal will together to do something. And even what that 'something' would be is not clear. with almost apologies for the length of what follows, here is a way of looking at it, some of which I stole from the more learned. 1 Is human activity increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? · Only Trump and a few others disagree with this 2 Does an increase in CO2 lead to increases in temperature? · Most agree with this, others say methane is much more significant 3 How much CO2 leads to how much temperature increase? · That is, what is the relationship between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature? o Today, it is 405.0 parts per million [ppm] and temperatures have risen 0.8C since the 1880s when it was 291 ppm [source: NASA & ice cores]. Is it a straight line or will it increase at an increasing rate? o most scientists think it is not a straight line, but there is disagreement on the rate of change · IPCC say 1.5C is the tipping point, other studies give more or less… some say it is already too late o “the CO2 from the first steam engine is still in the atmosphere….’ 4 What should we do about it? · Far less agreement here and this sits on top of the variables in #3. · Prophets [change our behaviour] vs Wizards [find a technical solution] · Or just accept it and build sea walls…?? 5 If there is agreement that the goal is CO2 reduction, how do we do it? · Do we limit every country to the same CO2 per capita? o This would mean a huge decrease for the Saudi Arabia, USA and Australia, and actually an increase for Indonesia and India · Do we get every country to decrease by the same % amount? Per capita or total? o This would ‘reward’ countries for their past excesses o What do we do about countries that have more extreme weather [Canada] vs one’s that do not [UK]? o Or, given that the root of the problem is people, should China and India be asked to decrease their population to help make the target? o What about countries with lots of renewables, can they offset their carbon that way? · 6 How do we accomplish globally whatever we decide in #4 and #5? · UN? But no formal authority, all consensus-driven. · Private initiatives [like the Mammoth Steppes project] · Direct action? · How to deal with ‘free loader’ problem, in that any country that does not meet its commitments [USA, Australia, Brazil, [Canada, too, I think]] can still benefit if other countries meet their’s · From 1 to 4, it is mostly about science. From 4 to 6, it is mostly about politics and how to influence globally. Is that more clear? Or would you like another helping of maple syrup?

Do I think that today the issue is being taken seriously enough and being acted upon with sufficient urgency? No, I don't. But that is what I 'believe', not what I [or anyone...] 'know' because there are too many variables to say with any confidence when it is too late. Or even what 'too late' really means. [extinct humans? Extinct planet? shift of power to Russia and Canada? thousands/millions/billions dead?] >> As usual, people discussing this seem unable to distinguish between what needs to happen, and what is happening. I don't understand how you draw that conclusion. It is certainly the case that there is not a globally agreed plan [ok, not the Paris "Agreement"] to which every nation and individual is committed. And there never will be. But there is certainly work going on to try to find alignment and action. The IPCC Report itself is one, the Climate Change Act, and despite disparaging it above, the Paris Agreement. We are not quite on WW2 level alignment, and that is because the threat is not obvious, not defined and not imminent [as in this year].

Without putting timings on any of this... I disagree with the above. If we accept that burning hydrocarbons will [mostly] have to end to get CO2 under control, then we are looking at three options to generate power. 1 renewables - expensive, need wind farms the size of the continental USA, the sun doesn't shine at night, etc etc 2 fusion - great solution and it has been 'just 30 years away' for many decades 3 nuclear - actually, the ideal low carbon solution, already sitting on the shelf. But politically toxic and with a brand reputation that makes even Facebook go 'eww...' It is cost prohibitive because the brand reputation has led to massive and redundant protections in the system. I don't have the numbers to hand, but something like fewer than 100 people have ever been killed in all nuclear accidents combined ever. Or a mix of all three. The energy output will need to be stored in batteries. And these will then power what has historically used hydrocarbons. So, unless one of the above energy sources can be scaled to personal transportation size, it is likely that the next generation will be using electricity to move.

I run an e-golf now and agree with the OP... if it is a local, predictable journey, all is fine. Longer afield.. well... Winter decreases the range, mostly through using the heat. But anything using energy lowers the battery: windshield wipers, batteries, headlights, radio, etc. The infrastructure is not in place, and we knew that when we made the plunge. But the power of our virtue-signalling early adopting meant we decided to do it. I believe the infrastructure will catch up, current headaches include: - needing half a dozen apps, some of which require a deposit, a deposit one might never use] - queues at chargers - chargers not working... this is the biggest pain We do a regular round trip between Oxford and Devon and have made that work with a 45 minute stop to charge, and let the dog stretch his legs. We also now know that when the range counter drops to zero, there is still a bit left... My wife went Oxford to Galway and back in early January. The absence of [working] charging stations in the UK was a big issue. No such problem in Ireland and, apparently, France. Ah... didn't answer the original question on range. Fully charged, it says 170 or so miles. Turn on the heat and it drops to below 150. Drive at much over 70mph in the winter and you will just scrape over the 100 mile mark. Push it over 80 and... you'll soon be pushing it. So the e car is quite handy for keeping my license safe.

caving... far too scary. Remember, what goes up, must come down [perhaps not at the desired speed, RIP David Lama et al]. But what goes down, does not necessarily have to come back up...

yes, the climate is always changing, and yes it has been warmer in the past. There is universal agreement on that [well, i expect there is a religious cult or two who would disagree]. The difference now is the extent to which climate change is man made. And the speed at which it is happening. Taking several millennium for climate changes has different implications for all living things than hundreds of years [or less]. This subject fills a library full of books which i will not try to summarise here. Instead i will make two points [with the conspiracy challenge in brackets]. 1 over 97% of scientists in this field think that climate change is man made and something to be concerned about. [they say that to get funding for their next research and/or there is no such thing as a climate scientist] 2 human infrastructure and humans and arable soil are in the wrong place for a rapidly warmed up world, so it is not simply a matter of moving a bit further north. [climate change is not real, the UK has had enough of experts anyway, we can't do anything without China, USA, and India on side [actually, that one is kind of true]] No one has to believe any of this, no one has to change their behaviour. And it is a fact that the climate is changing, the true extent is not known [kind of hard to do controlled experiments with a population size of one planet]. What to do about it is even less known.

i take it you're a climber, if you're using that short form? And British? [as opposed to 'biners' on my side of the ocean]

To update/close this one... after some of the suggestions above, I RTFM. There was mention of a pressure switch that needed to be set lower than some other pressure. After finding a couple of allan screws, i backed one out and, presto, the pump stopped running after the tap was turned off. Thanks all for the help.

how does one do a photo search? [genuinely curious]