Ronaldo47

No. Limestones vary in their chemical makeup. Some are highly resistant to erosion, others less so, and some can be used to make hydraulic lime, others not. Some extracts from the Department of the Environment leaflet No. 16 "Mortars for Brickwork and Blockwork" (1976) ' Ordinary Portland cement:lime:sand mortars combine the workability and plasticity of the old lime:sand mortars with the more rapid hardening and greater strength and durability of the cement:sand mortars.' 'BS 890 Building limes. Eminently hydraulic limes are now almost unobtainable, but magnesian limes may be available in some localities; use of these limes should conform to the manufacturers' recommendations. Semi-hydraulic limes can contribute some additional strength to mortars but mix proportions need not be varied on this account. Quicklimes are now rarely used on site.'

One reason for the switch to portland cements is that most of the sources of eminently hydraulic lime have become exhausted. Traditional eminently hydraulic lime is still svailable , but costs considerably more than portland.

The 1/2" and 3/4" pipe threads are the only ones where BSP and NPT have identical pitches (14tpi). My screw thread book gives the BSP/NPT pipe diameters for 1/2" as 0.8250"/ 0.840" and for 3/4" as 1.0410"/ 1.050". BSP/ NPT thread flank angles are 55°/ 60°. BSP threads have rounded crests and roots, those of NPT are flat. If the fit is tight, using a die/tap on/in the larger/smaller thread should provide a solution.

I used to use Plastic Padding Type Soft for car body repairs and general filling jobs, but I haven't been able to buy it for some years. I now use Ronson High Performance Wood Filler, a polystyrene-type filler that looks, smells, and behaves much the same as Plastic Padding Type Soft, apart from the colour.

It's not rocket science to make a new key for that type of lock. When I was a child, we inherited a box of assorted mismatched locks and keys, and I managed to modify some of the keys to fit some of the simple locks like the one in the photo, using a hacksaw and files from dad's toolbox.

Especially so when horses were the motive power.

My understanding is that, when canals were in their heyday, bargees were paid well enough to afford a house on land for their family, and that it was only later when competition from the railways led to lower wages, that living on board with your family became widespread. So the reference to three centuries of living afloat is arguably not entirely correct.

According to some of my geology text books, the temperatures in the UK during the Roman occupation and the Viking era were around 1.0 to 1.5 °C higher than they are now. When first colonised by the Vikings, the coastal areas of Greenland did have green vegetation and could support farming. Cooler weather later made the coastal farming communities unviable. The baseline date for the pre-industrial age seems to be in the middle of what was sometimes called a mini ice age, a period of around three centuries when temperatures in Europe were lower than they are now.

Thanks, I had missed the earlier thread.

I saw the new "Wonka" film last night. Soon after the start there was a flashback sequence where he was recalling his childhood with his mother on a working narrowboat. It includes a very brief short of the boat on a canal, apparently a traditional motor with a tarpaulin-covered hold, but the rest of that scene is set in the interior of the cabin, evidently shot in a studio. I wondered if anyone knows anything about the boat?

I have tried visiting the Playstore, but am not offered an update. I have had to log in via the Incognito route to post this. It seems from feedback on the Chrome playstore link that a recent update has caused a number of problems, at least one of which resembles mine.

Using incognito mode is the only way I can access the forum when my phone is in the "unsafe" mode. I had to go incognito earlier today, but at present it is working normally, although it had forgotten my saved sign-in. Here is a screenshot of my Chrome data. It's the only browser on my phone.

My dictionary gives both forms, but in principle I agree with you.

This is what I get when trying to log in normally: I can't make screen shots in Incognito mode, so I will have to type what I get after typing in the forum address in the google search bar. The text enclosed in square brackets [ ] appears in a clickable box. First page +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ {exclamation mark in red triangle} Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.canalworld.net (for example , passwords, messages or credit cards). Learn more NET.ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID [BACK TO SAFETY] [ADVANCED] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Clicking the [ADVANCED] box produces this page: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This server could not prove that it is www.canalworld.net, its security certificate is not trusted by your device's operating ststem. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your communication. Proceed to www.canalworld.net (unsafe) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Clicking the "unsafe" link gets me to a logon page where I have to enter my user name and password. I have to do this every time I log on, as these things are not saved in "incognito" mode. Once I have entered the forum, I can navigate around as normal, and only have to go through the signing-in rigmarole again after I have left incognito mode and wish to return here. I am using a Samsung Galaxy Note 4

I started getting this problem a few weeks ago, sometimes working normally, other times refusing to connect to this site unless I go 'incognito'. Even in incognito mode I first get a message asking if I would like to proceed to this "unsafe" site anyway, whereupon it works fine. But sometimes I have no problem logging on. Using an elderly Samsung smartphone that hasn't been updated for a while. Since having this problem with canalworld, I have also now started to get similar behaviour when accessing another forum, but for that one I don't gave to go incognito and can simply over-ride the warning and proceed to the "unsafe" site anyway. These two forums (fora?) are the only web sites that exhibit these problems.