PaulG

I said the alternator could "supply" 40A continuously, not "charge at" 40 A continuously. Alternators are usually derated because they are badly cooled, and I think most pulley ratios are chosen with this in mind. It should actually be capable of supplying the full rated output for short periods. But only at the start of the charging process. There comes a point where the current curves of identical batteries being charged by either alternator converge, in this case at 40A, and from then on the charge rate is the same regardless of which alternator is used. So, IMHO, I don't think you will get anything like 40% improvement. Er, maybe. But I wouldn't recommend it.

I'd check to see that the bigger alternator will actually give you an improvement before fitting the bigger alternator. Your 65A alternator should comfortably supply 40A continuously. Depending on the type of battery, the charge rate should not be much more than 10-15% of the capacity of the battery bank. So unless your battery bank is significantly bigger than approx 300 aH (Wet Plate) / 400 aH (AGM), you're not going to see much improvement in charging time. (Chris/Gibbo, please feel free to explain/correct my figures - I'm not going to take offence!)

Did someone mention electrics?

Nice definition. However, I'd also add some requirement for anyone describing themselves as an environmentalist to practise what they preach in some demonstrable fashion. I don't mean that they have to live in a Yurt in the middle of Dartmoor, knit their own meusli, or fuel their central heating with cattle dung, but at least they should be able to show that they have some kind of sincerity in their own lifestyle choices. Otherwise, in my view, they're back in the "quotes"!

That number plate is fitted as standard equipment on Crossfires

We had a similar experience when we bought our boat. On the basis that we could give them a name, address, and telephone number, they gave us the keys to several boats that we were interested in viewing, and pointed us in the direction of their "sales pontoons". They didn't need to put up notices asking viewers not to start engines - on all the boats that we looked at, the batteries were as flat as a witches' t*t. I couldn't understand why "our" boat had been up for sale for so long, as on paper it looked like a good deal. But when we went on board, some of the reasons became apparent straight away. There were so many spiders' webs inside that it was an "Indiana Jones" experience to pass from one end to the other. The galley worktops were covered in a thick layer of grime and dead insects, and the bath contained an inch of stagnant water. All in all, enough general "grot" to send most females running for cover! The service batteries were just as flat as the engine start one, so you had no way of knowing whether any of the electrical systems actually worked or not. All in all, it was a dirty, lifeless, non-functional thing with a £45K price tag. I made an offer for the boat which was substantially less than the asking price, and, with a little haggling, got a slightly higher offer accepted. I came to the conclusion that the main negotiating skill required in that brokerage was being able to pursuade an owner to accept a lower offer, rather than pursuading a prospective buyer to pay the asking price. In other words, as a buyer, the broker was actually fighting my corner against the seller - the very person who was paying his fee! I mentioned the condition of the interior to the person who was manning the desk at the brokerage, and they said that "it was the owner's responsibility to look after the interior". They only hosed down the outside from time to time. Obviously occasional battery charging was out of the question. "for", "rope", "money", "old" - arrange in the order of your choice. Before placing a boat for sale with any brokerage, I'd agree 100% with you. Visit them posing as a buyer first, just to get a feel for the service that they really provide to sellers.

Yeah, right. From what I could see his renewable energy "in situ" comes from solar panels. Not green, and even if they were, you'd need acres of them to put much of a dent in his 221,000 kWh consumption. Let's say that 5% of the electricity sourced by his local utility is from "renewables". Mr. Gore pays a premium to "only" recieve this energy. Which simply means that there is less of it to go around the general populace. It's a rich man's way of being "green" - just pay more money! "I'll have all the "green" energy, thank you, and then I'll lecture the rest of you poor people for destroying the planet." It's exactly the kind of pseudo-environmental bullsh*t that makes people put quotes around the world "environmentalist". Whoops! Sorry, I just did. Cheers Paul

Too right, mate. Our friend Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore lives in a 20-room mansion (that doesn't include the bathrooms) with a heated swimming pool. His website waxes lyrical about all the"green" measures that he has had installed. But in February 2007 the BBC reported that ..."public records indicated that Mr Gore's 20-room house and swimming pool in Nashville used nearly 221,000 kWh in 2006, compared with a yearly [national] average of 10,656." "Mr Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider did not deny the figures, but said that both Mr Gore and his wife Tipper worked from home, implying that they were therefore likely to use more energy" That explains everything, then. The full article is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6401489.stm

Because you said that "we seem to love hating and deriding others, whether they are politicians (many of them have worked hard down the years to support the canals and waterways interests).." and as far as I could see I was the only one who had mentioned politicians in this thread. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but my doctor didn't seem to think so last time I saw him. Well one was the Prime Minister, so I think him and two more is enough IMHO we have a right to expect a much higher standard of behaviour from our elected representatives in Government than we do from the general public. These people are in a position of trust. I'm not talking about a few silly sex scandals, but the serious abuses of power and position (David Blunkett. There I remembered another one!). I'm not alone in thinking that (Neil Hamilton!! Oops! I said three was enough, didn't I?) there have been far too many (Derek Conway!!! Look, I'm sorry, it's not my fault! Names just keep coming into my head!) instances in recent years. Anyway, I suspect that we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Toodle Pip! Paul

Actually what I said was that many liars become senior politicians. I need only name "Weapons of mass distruction" Blair, "Simple sword of Truth" Aitken, and our dear friend Lord Archer as the first three to come to mind. Q.E.D. These are the tip of the iceberg - they are just the ones who got caught out telling porkies. I didn't deride any politician who has worked so support the canals and waterways.

As I said, she should go boating. Then she'd quickly establish that the answers to "real world" problems do not lie in solar panels or eletric propulsion!

If you don't mind me saying so, Helen, Why wait until after you've done the research? Go out and do some boating. Talk to some boaters, (we don't bite, honest!) and maybe you will get more of a feel for why some people get so offended when it's implied that they are somehow careless of their environment. And it's a much more fun way of researching than sitting in front of a computer! Paul

Andy, you were right. Anyone that is "writing a report" about a subject that they appear to know little or nothing about deserves to be treated with suspicion. If you go boating you know that you have to use resources sparingly. Essentials like water, electricity, gas, fuel, sewage and refuse disposal all have to be actively managed rather than just arriving/departing unseen though a convenient pipe or cable. It makes you acutely aware of where stuff comes from, where it goes when you've finished with it, and how much of it you are using. So, in general, boaters are just about the most environmentally aware group of people that I have ever come into contact with. If Helen was in the early stages of research for a report, rather than actually writing it, she may not have sounded so much like an eco-marxist.

Thanks everyone for your very helpful suggestions and comments. The "cat litter in a stocking" was my favourite - thanks Alex. Now I'm off to raid the wife's knicker drawer...... Cheers Paul

Hmm.. I know that feeling. BTW, is your boat really called "Emporer"? At the risk of being pedantic, I thought it was spelled "Emperor", or am I being thick and missing a pun or comething?

I always thought "Comical Ali" would be good at the met office.... But this is how they really do it..

And, of course, if you have two lives, then usually one of these will be unfused and unswitched, as most mains switches only switch the live. I came across this situation at a club I belong to when we replaced the generator. Unbeknown to use, the "new" one had been used on a vehicle, and had been wired for 120/120 operation. So we had a 120v AC line running right round the building that was permanently live. This only came to light when someone changing a light fitting got a shock from a supply that was supposed to be "off". Paul

I do mine twice a year and use a synthetic oil (LPWS3). I'm pretty new to this oil change malarky - (when I look under the bonnet of my car nowadays there's nothing there that looks remotely like an engine, so I get a "man" to do it.) However, it does seem like a good way of spending some "quality time" with my engine and perhaps heading off some problems before they become major ones, like the time I found some wiring rubbing on the alternator drive belt. Trouble is, I don't seem to be able to get the oil filter off without dropping 1/2 litre of oil into the tray every time. I've tried putting a plastic ice cream container underneath, but there just isn't room. What's the trick? Disposable nappy? What's the best way of cleaning the drip tray? I thought of cat litter, but I don't think I would be able to get it out again. You'd need to be a contorionist to get at the tray in my boat, and at my stage of physical deterioration, it's impossible. More nappies? Any advice much appreciated! Cheers Paul

Here's the "consensus" on that! http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2...urricanes_N.htm However, in the same article "...but a top storm researcher has predicted a very active 2007 Atlantic hurricane season. Colorado State University's William Gray expects at least nine hurricanes, with a good chance one will hit the U.S. coast...." He could not have been more wrong if he tried. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ From this Florida State University site "Analysis of integrated global hurricane activity shows that the previous 12-24 months exemplify a continuing decreasing trend since 1997". Q.E.D.

Sorry, but this is plain wrong. The warmest year on record is 1934. Someone found an itsy-bitsy error in the calculations, and NASA had to correct them. You won't have heard anything about this, of course, because our press has no interest in "thousands NOT to die" stories. Using the corrected figures from NASA, five of the ten warmest years on record were before WW2. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383 Cheers Paul

Dunno, mate. But what I do know is that the bigger and better liars among us generally rise to become senior politicians. Most of them went to Oxbridge to study Greek or Law, or some other non-technical subject, so when they start to lecture me about climateology, I am somehow always reminded of Mr. Blairs' elusive "Weapons of Mass Distruction". It doesn't matter if you employ "two and a half thousand scientists" so that you can claim a "scientific consensus" (which is, of course an oxymoron in itself, as "consensus" is not, and never will be, part of the scientific method. There was only one Einstein, and it did not stop him from being correct!) I was also fortunate enough to be at college during the 1970's, when, of course, we were in the middle of the "ice age" scare. Unfortunately for Schneider and the other architects of this con, the global thermometer suddenly went in the wrong direction. Seeming undaunted by this small inconvenience, the very same people are now trying to sell us the "global warming" scare. Well, they conned me once. Paul

Merc engines are the very work of Beelzebub. Especially when powered by Pertol.

But Bones, but unless your boat's electric powered, you're not environmentally friendly enough for "Helenv". You haven't splashed out £4 to £5K for solar panels? Tsk Tsk! Does your boat make a wash when it moves? It does? Oh dear! So, sorry, no "green spondulicks" for you!

If you pass under the M5 motorway bridge over the Avon near Tewkesbury, you'll see that the surface water from about 2 miles of three-lane drains straight into the river. I'd suggest that the oil from the many thousands of vehicles per hour using the motorway 24/7 far outweighs the alleged "pollution" from the few hundred boats on the river, most of which spend their time moored up in the marina. In my experience the vast majority of boaters respect the environment. It's one of the reasons they go boating in the first place. I can't think of a lower-impact leisure activity. Last year in just over two weeks holiday, the wife and myself used about 30 gallons of diesel and one bottle of gas. That was for everything, electricity, heating, lighting, and moving around. And we only drove a mile up the road to get on the boat! Dammit, these "green do-gooders" are driving me straight into the Jeremy Clarkson camp of environmentalism. (Rant over).