alan_fincher
-
Posts
38,278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
81
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by alan_fincher
-
-
Goodness!
In some way or another we are not alone then!
Picking up on points made before Mike reported his issues.....
David & Julie,
I haven't drained the sump yet, (… yes, I probably should have done an oil change by now, but haven't organised it yet...). However there are no obvious signs of anything nasty around the oil filler cap, nor on the dipstick, nor of any obvious oil or any other sludge making its way into the water circuit header tank.
So, whilst I'm told that hairline cracks in the head or gasket damage are fairly common on the BMCs, there is no obvious evidence, nor is the engine in any way running badly, (unless you call occasionally getting too hot "badly"
)Tommo,
Thanks for your thoughts on your previous “Evans & Son”.
If I have correctly understood it, you had a tank on the BASE plate of the boat rather than the swim ?
The theory I have swatted up on says this should give a LESS good result, (as hot water rises, and hence tends to avoid the lower cooling surface).
So if you survived with a 2 foot square base tank on a river, one on the side sounds like it should cope with non severe canal conditions, (and which it seems mine may well have done, in the past).
Moley,
I don't know if your gauge is being honest, but to my admittedly inexperienced self, regularly running at 95 degrees sounds hotter than I'd expect. Paul's advice sounds good to me.
Similarly, my gauge has never "twitched", once it starts to go high, it does so steadily but surely. However I wasn't watching it that closely when we got the boat, that I can be sure what the maximum value was we ever got to in "normal" circumstances. My gut feel was about 85, (or half way between 70 and 100, being the only 2 points marked in that range).
Paul,
What I can't say is how hard I'm working my BMC in terms of RPM, as no rev counter is fitted. My guess though is I'm generally well below the kind of 2,300 figure you mention.
As I think I've said before, there are no calorifiers, etc, but surely all these can do is DELAY any overheat, if the skin tank can't dump the heat fast enough.
Once the skin tank is fully hot, and you have a well lagged hot water tank full of near scalding water, the inevitable might still occur, surely?
And at last to poor old Mike,
This sounds like a very traumatic "short" journey
You have my sympathies, as so far we have managed to get back to where we needed to be, by when we had to.
Your boat, engine, and (original!) skin tank arrangements sound so similar, that I think we must be talking about a similar set up.
I don't think you mentioned boat length? I'd be interested to compare this, as I guess it will influence how much power your engine needs to put out. (Ours is 50 foot).
As John says, it's obvious that some of what you have is an attempt to deal with a history of problems. Surely that would be the only reason to remove the thermostat? And that extra tank sounds like it's more likely to be introducing airlock problems, than to actually be offering any effective extra cooling.
I meant to photograph my current arrangements this weekend, but ended up very busy, and failing to do so.
What I'd be interested to know though, is how are the feed and return to your current 2ft by 2ft by 4" tank arranged. On ours they go in through 90 degree elbows but BOTH through the TOP of the tank.
Put another way, the return for the cooled water is not through a connection visibly in the bottom corner of a tank, but rather through the top.
My assumption was that there must be an internal pipe down to near the bottom, although I've since had it suggested that it could be baffled vertically, rather than horizontally. (I doubt this, as the whole tank seems to get hot from the top, then work down – with vertical baffles I’d expect getting hot “left to right”).
Sorry to labour this point, but in my case it gives a potential "high" point in the return from the tank, back through the gearbox oil cooler, and into the engine. (I guess I realy mean "feed" [of cooled water] from the tank, to the engine). To me this high point is significant, as it somewhere that air or gas can easily collect, and where no provision currently exists to bleed it out, (other than detaching hoses, and spilling lots of coolant).
Finally, (for today at least).
We have been gently on the move again this weekend, though not sure we proved a lot on this topic.
The main part of trip each way was only about 3 miles, and includes working 7 locks, (but each direction was done on different days, this time, so not that harsh a test).
Temperature rises to around 70, (the assumed thermostat temp), then stays there for quite a while. This time it was rising slightly above that by the end, but the truth is it may take this long for the whole skin tank to become hot, and start to re-cirulate water not fully cooled.
There was no particular reason this time though, to believe anything nasty would have happened if we had cruised twice as long.
But then, it was a cold day, the canal was cold, and we were hardly thrashing it……
But if head gasket, (or similar) is an issue, it’s not enough to bring us down every time out….
We are about to book the boat in for a crop of other (planned) work that involves a slipping. My instinct at the moment is to spend the bucks to get a bigger external tank fitted as well. My logic for this is that even if not on rivers now, we will want to one day, and I doubt the current tank will truly be up to that in all cases.
Once again, thanks to all those on this thread – your experiences and advice on this are very much appreciated.
-
Lots more helpful input from all - thanks !
In all honesty, I don't even know if the current small tank has baffles. The "plumbing" arrangements seem a bit odd to me, and are not done in a way that it's particularly easy to disconnect hoses, and insert something in, to see what I come up against.
I'll try and get a picture of current arrangements when I'm next there - which will probably open even more debate about poor design
.Frankly the current tank- is small enough, and looks heavily built enough, that I don't think there's too much scope for it disorting away from any internal baffles that may be present. But I rule out nothing, so will put a 24" rule across it in all directions, both when cold, and when hot, to see if that could be an issue.
I should stress I'm not afraid of spending some money to get this sorted - just that I want to have the most sensible conversation I can with the engineer about what he would weld up, baffles, connections to the engine, etc. If it's going to be done, I want to get it right.
In the meantime a short trip out is planned for the weekend, so I'll monitor it like a hawk then, to see what happens, (.... of course sods law says nothing will
)Finally, so far as I know "Evans & sons" have built a reasonable number of shells, although I don't know where ours, (built 1995), comes in their learning curve about how things should be done. But I'd be surprised if there aren't others about with a similar "small but fat" tank, and I'd still be VERY interested in the practical experiences of anyone who runs one....
Once again, thanks all.
-
-
-
Arthur.
The heat that needs to be dissipated is only the 20% of the total energy produced the 80% goes to turn the propeller, I don't think fuel efficiency was mentioned.
The keel tank that Alan has on his boat is not only too small and too fat it is probably has no baffles at all, the circulating hot water instead of being forced into contact with the hull surface to lose it's heat can find a 'line of least resistance' and take a short cut straight back into the outlet.
John and others,
Thanks for continuing to give your thoughts on this.
I'm a novice to all this, which is why I sought the advice of all those of you with far more experience than myself.
I don't doubt the tank is undersized, but equally am curious as to how the boat can have operated this way for 10 years, if it's not even suitable for use on a relatively wide and unsilted canal.
Of course the problem with dealing with a brokerage is you never get to meet the last owner, and to have a realistic discussion with them about how much they have used the boat. But they don't seem to have been afraid to spend money on repairs, so if it regularly boiled for them, I rather think they might have tried to solve it.
Of course if I am going to throw money at it, the question then becomes how big should the new tank be, (in area), given there are some constraints on where on the swim it can sit, and not be too close to the prop, or too far forwards to get a sensible connection to the leading end, (which could easily end up forward of the engine room, unfortunately).
No two sources seem to agree how much area is needed "per horsepower".
My surveyor suggested that the current 4 square feet is "recommended suitable for 15-20 hp only", so to me this would imply 8 square feet should cope with 30 to 40, (enough for the current engine, or any likely future replacement).
The engineer who I have talked to, suggests 8.75 square feet for 35hp, (based presumably on some factor he uses for such things). So broadly similar to the surveyor, then.
But the Reading Marine notes say that "something like a 33hp BMC is likely to require a skin tank area of 11 sq. ft", with some reasoning and calculations as to why. This is obviously a lot more, and probably very hard to accommodate sensibly with one external tank.
My gut feel is that anything double the current area, and much thinner, so water can't easily bypass the cooled side, should do the trick. However the question of baffles seems to be paramount, if this is to work properly. I need to ask the engineer what he would do in this area.
To the uninitiatiated, how would these be done, for a tank added externally. Presumably it's not possible to weld baffles in the middle of a thin tank both to the tank outer, and to the inner side, (the boat itself) ? So would they add a load of baffles first t the hull, then cover that with the new plate ? Or would the baffles be built up on the plate, and then that used to form the "lid" of the box on the hull ?
Finally, (lots of questions!), what do I need to ask about the thickness of plate to be used (for the outside of the tank) ? My gut feel says it now becomes the new swim, so should be in a similar 6mm thickness ?
-
I may be talking nonsense here, and, as I'm not at the boat, where the instruction book is, I can't easily check.
But from memory of our Morco, isn't the way the control works that as you turn it DOWN (i.e. anti-clockwise), it restricts the flow, and the water gets hotter ?
If I'm right, it sounds like you may need to turn it UP, to increase the flow enough to keep your tap/shower valve open, (assuming it's not fully clockwise already....)
If I'm wrong, (it often happens!), then you were right in the first place, and I apologise for being unhelpful
But anyway, if you adjust it with a hot tap running, it should be quite obvious what effect on flow versus temperature is being achieved by turning it "up" or "down".
-
Thanks Yamanx.
I assume you mean 8 square feet, rather than 8 feet square
If not, your problem may be you are drawing too much, and dragging along the bottom
But seriously my tank is only half that in area, (4 sq ft, rather than 8), and on a longer boat, so I think is radically under-specced compared to yours.
I'm certainly not flogging it along too fast, I think. Perhaps there was a bit of that when I had my last boat, back in the late 1970s, but these days I'm a VERY sedate boater, and in no particular rush at all. We certainly travel well under the speed limit, and rarely creating much wash.
Anyway, we should have an opportunity to try it again for a short trip out this weekend, which may indicate if it's a worsening problem or not, (although admittedly this will be mostly locks, rather than many miles).
I'll report what happens, but in the meantime I'm most interested in other peoples thoughts and experiences on this, as the new external skin tank looks like it would be a fairly pricey option.
-
-
Sorry if this is a bit off topic.
IM going to have to make a new hatch cover as ours is well and truely rubbished and the runners are also split.
The hatch is wood and grp.
I was thinking is i could just make a hinged cover rather than a sliding one,if its goint to be £45 just for runners especially.
My thinking is once its open its open sliding or otherwise.
Or AM I missing something?
A hinged one can only be fully open, or fully shut.
A slide can be left partway open, either to provide limited ventilation, or, (if it's a trad stern), to leave just enough room for the steerer, without more rain and snow blowing in than essential.
Also bear in mind that any hinged hatch you add to the roof, (assuming it folds back on itself), will then present it's inner surface to the sky.
You need to be careful you don't design something that acts like a collecting dish for when you shut it again
-
Thanks to all those who have taken the trouble to send their experiences and advice.
I ended up with such a long initial post, that I feared nobody would have the time to read it, but instead I find that I’m being asked for additional information
In order….
John,
Excellent input. I think you are probably right about 12 sq ft being an ideal, although that would be very hard to manage, I think.
My gut feel is that about 8 would be adequate, and it seems other people’s often are no bigger than this.
Nigel,
The boat does not currently have a calorifier – I’d like to fit one as a future project.
I’ve not removed that thermostat cover yet, but I’m guessing it opens at 70 degrees. The temp sensor is located close to it, and the cooling circuit pipes only start to heat when it indicates 70. It will then register 70 for quite a while – probably until the skin tank is sending water back to the engine not fully cooled.
Yes, I realise ideally this shouldn’t happen
When things are ‘OK’ (ish) it doesn’t get above about 85 degrees, but when troubles are suspected, then it creeps higher.David,
You’re exactly what I wanted – someone with a similar set up, and even better with an “add-on” tank. I suspect your thermostat may be designed to open at 80, and mine at 70. It sounds encouraging that it copes well with the Thames.
Arthur,
I fear, as I implied in my original post, that you may be correct. I think I may have two issues.
Firstly something causing air or gasses to air-lock the system. I haven’t gone into all the detail (!), but the cooling circuit has a high point in the pipework, making an easy place for an air-lock to happen, apart from anywhere on the engine itself. I might try and take a picture to post.
Secondly a tank that will cope with normal non-intensive canal use, but inadequate if pushed. I’m on the lower Grand Union, so pause regularly for locks, where I tend to not use the engine much whilst in them, so perhaps the tank has regular opportunities to “recover” a little.
I suspect we will need a bigger tank once we do start to travel, but fear it may not be the solution to current woes.
Rayman,
In general it’s not losing much water, other than when it “boiled”. But my skin tank is so “thick” that it holds a lot – probably much more than in a larger “flatter” tank. Hence there is a lot of expansion when hot, meaning that I have to leave a lot of air space in the header tank on the engine, or some water will always be expelled. There is no additional overflow bottle, so if filled very high, water simple gets pushed out of the small vent on the pressure cap.
And before anyone asks, the cap seems to be an original, looks sound, and seems to be marked up as a 7 psi one.
I hope that makes some sense, and all the input so far has been extremely helpful.
-
Our boat was only bought a couple of months ago, and has so far only been used for short journeys, (2 days max).
It’s keel cooled, and we were warned by the surveyor that the skin tank might be inadequate, particularly if taken on rivers.
Initially we had no problems, and cruised all day on the canal, usually involving quite regular locks.
But we then started hitting some issues – in the worst case boiling over. At that time a possible airlock was diagnosed, and after refilling with water, (lots of!), we got home with no further trouble.
Now, however, it seems to be getting hotter than it should, even for quite short trips.
But, because the problem is intermittent, I’m far from convinced that the issue is just one of skin tank to small and/or poorly designed.
The boat, (built Evans & son, 10 years ago), is 50 foot, powered by an elderly (recon) marinised BMC 1.8. The tank on the inside of the left swim is only about 60 cm, (2 foot), square, so presents only about 4 square feet to the cooling surface. It is also an unhelpful 10cm, (4”) “thick”, and not obvious if it is internally baffled or not.
In an ideal world, the tank ought, I think, to be twice that area at least, but it’s not obvious we are operating at power levels where the current tank should not cope with canal conditions. Clearly the previous owner operated the boat with this engine and tank for the last 10 years, but I don’t know if he had issues.
An engineer has suggested welding a new much larger, (double current size), but much thinner, tank to the OUTSIDE of the current swim, (same side), and simply abandoning the current tank.
He says this is far easier, and hence much cheaper, than remodelling or adding new tanks inside. It would add a little over an 1” to the swim on that side, and he says would not affect water flow to the prop, or handling. (He would angle either end to give a slope to rejoin the hull, rather than just making it box shaped).
I would very much welcome views on:
1) Just how bad is current 4 square foot of cooling for the BMC in a 50’ boat – what do other people have, and does it work OK?
2) Is this likely to be the reason for intermittent overheat, or do I need to look at other issues?
3) Is the engineer’s suggestion valid, or should I have any concerns about the tank being added externally? (More tank internally would be a bu**er! There really is very little space)
-
Yes,
Use of an un-necessarily thick steel for the cabin can cause a degree of instabilty and roll.
Our boat has relatively "standard" 10mm bottom plate, and 6 mm hull sides, but the topsides are all in 5mm plate. 4mm is more common.
We were warned by the surveyor that, although this was in no way making the boat overly unstable, that it would be more likely to roll for a bit, as people change sides, and get on and off. Also that once rolling from side to side, it would take longer than a boat with a less substantial top to settle down again.
In practice you quickly get used to it, and it only ever seems to be a real issue when the livelier of my two sons, (who simply has too much energy!) is onboard.
Additionally we were told it would not be sensible to pile the roof with earth filled planters, or bags of coal, but do not have any intention of so doing anyway.
On the plus side, although there seems to be little additional bracing, the cabin flexes remarkably little, even if descended onto really quite firmly from a high lockside.
-
I don't know about all types of working boat, but believe that the GUCC "Towns" & "Stars" were built nominally over 7 feet. (7 feet and 1/2 inch seems to ring a bell).
Yes the sides could be pulled in with chains, but the more battered ones had usually spread at points between these, so even if 7' at the chains, they were probably quite a bit more at the bulges.
My own experience of an overwidth boat was the (poorly!) converted Stewart's and Lloyds tube carrying boat that I owned back in the late 1970s, (a wrought iron hull ostensibly dating from the late 1890s).
This had been shortened to 40 feet, long before we had it, but was already spread when this was done, and measured something like an inch and a half more than seven feet across the new stern. It was similarly over-wide forward of that, made even worse by a new strake added to the outside of the hull.
I always feared hanging in a narrow lock, (or getting stuck on the way up), but on the narrow canals it travelled it never came close.
And yes, I did tell it's new owner that it was on the wide side.
Personally these days I'd still stick at well under 7 feet though!
But I must admit that I've not yet measured the beam of what I have now.....
-
Quoting from "The Inland Boat Owners Book".....
Most flat bottomed narrowboats are based on a two-metre (6ft 6 in) bottom plate. This requires the hull sides to lean out as they rise to make the overall beam of 6ft 10in at rubbing strake level.
A few builders around Birmingham keep hull sides absolutely perpendicular and sit them on a 6ft 10in bottom plate.
One or two elsewhere fold the hull sides in near the bottom so that they will sit on a 6ft wide bottom plate, thus reducing cross section and ressistance under the water.
I hope that helps?
-
Unfortunately I don't have Sky, but for the record...
Dover shows as GUCC No 136, delivered by H&W in February 1937, and registered at Rickmansworth in Sept '37.
It's original pairing was with butty 270 Downham, which seems to have been a wooden "Big Ricky".
(Source "The George and the Mary" - Alan Faulkner)
-
I always though a 1.5 was 30hp and a 1.8 was 38hp but anyway..
1) Yes, very possible to get spares for the BMC engine. They were the most popular choice in the 80's and early 90's and there's loads of them still knocking around.
2) I've driven a few boats which are powered by BMC's and I thought they preformed quite well myself. Sometimes noisey and smokey at start up, but eh! Do you know a diesel that doesn't smoke, even just at start up?
3) Noisey? suppose so, but no noiser than other engines of the same age. It's water cooled, which makes it a bit quieter than the old, popular range of Lister SR's.
Of course in many of the boats these are installed in, the quoted maximum horsepower is probably fairly academic.
On my BMC 1.8 powered boat the skin tank for keel cooling almost certainly could not with the engine working at even half it's quoted max power, (or not over extended periods, anyway...).
I think fairly "skimpy" tanks are not uncommon in budget or mid-range hulls. For canal use, most of the time you'll probably get away with it, but certainly a mate of mine has had to have a second one welded in to give enough capacity for serious river use.
I'm rather fearful based on experience to date that I may be in a similar position - so please look out for a post for advice on an intermittently overheating BMC coming this way soon!...
Whilst on the topic of BMC spares, which I haven't really been into yet, where is the most economic place to source things, please?
I'm not necessarily talking of "full rebuild" stuff - more things like pumps, thermostats, alternators, fan belt, gaskets, etc.
Does anyone know any good "order on the net" sources, please ?
-
In my llimited experience to date of boat maintenance the book that is coming out by far the most often is my cheque book, (unfortunately)...
Seriously, though, I haven't yet encountered too many really useful books, although (in my view) Graham Booth's "The Narrowboat Builder's Book" contains quite a lot of useful stuff, even if you are improving an existing boat, rather than fitting out a new one....
-
Alan,
It's a bit strange having a Shire do the job, I thought it'd be a big.
I suppose you could only do it on wide canals, like the Grand Union, Leeds & Liverpool, Bridgewater etc as the bridges are a lot higher and don't have the same low arc.
Try taking it down a normal canal, plenty o' fun!
Edit: Ahh, it was a barge full of tourists, so yeah, understandable!
I agree - there's not a lot of room under even under many of GU bridges around here
This outfit was often not the most professional I have encountered (!), and I don't think were exactly operating with all the paperwork, insurance, safety procedures they should have been. I know ultimately that BW took possesion of the boat(s) involved, and towed them off to an uncertain future. The local lock-keeper, who's life had been made a misery by this operation, was the one spotted towing the actual trip boat, (with a narrow boat, not a horse!), and the look of enjoyment on his face that he was moving it off of his patch was indescribable!.
The horses used were, from memory, 2 shires, plus one of a smaller breed, but of course none had started life as barge horses. I was told at the time that it's difficult for a horse to adapt from "road" use to that of pulling a boat from a towpath. Because the line has to be diagonal to the boat, there is a constant tendancy for the horse to be pulled towards the water, so it has to compensate by constantly trying to move away from the water.
As to "getting the horse out on the non-towpath" side, that's not too practical around here, as generally that side is also piled, and often inaccessible. In particular, most of Tring Summit, where these ramps still are, is in a deep cutting, so on the non-towpath side, a very steep embankment comes right down to the water's edge.
-
Also Tring Summit, on the Grand Union has surviving examples of the ramps used to retrieve horses that ended up in the cut.
Back in the late 1970s, I actually saw one in use, when the people who operated a horse drawn trip barge, (and it was a 14 foot wide barge), had managed to put a Shire horse in the water.
Even with the ramp, they had a massive struggle to extract the poor beast, so I shudder to think what would have been the case on just about any other bit of the canal, where these don't exist.
Whilst on the original post of canal terminology, I always like the fact that going ahead to prepare locks is "lock wheeling", even when no wheels are involved.
-
We have a very basic Porta Potti, (well actually it's a Sannie Pottie).
We also have very limited space in the bathroom area, and no obvious options for adding a holding tank, even if we wanted to get into pump-out, (and I'm not sure we do).
Without going into too much unplesant detail (!), some members of the crew don't "get on too well" with the current basic arrangements, and I'd like something a bit more able to cope with 4 onboard.
The cassette ones look like a good compromise, but I'm only really aware of the Thetford ones, which require access from the side or back for removal of the cassette - something I cannot arrange without a major redesign, as the crrent toilet area has the hull to one side, a shower to the other, and a bulkhead with a fixed double bed behind. (I don't fancy having to completely dismantle a bed to empty the loo!).
Can anyone advise something not requiring a holding tank, which could be used in these circumstances.
Ideally this would have/be:
* Reasonable set height
* Fairly generous bowl size
* Fitted to the boat
A cassette one where the cassette could be removed forwards would suit, but do such things exist, please ?
-
Get suitable length of steel pipe with the correct threads at each end screw onto tank, tighten with stilsons, don't daub putty all over the place you can guarantee will need to get at it again. PTFE tape is usually regarded as best thread sealer.
The outer end is then easy to sort out.
Not sure I entirely understand the configuration you are grappling with, but picking up on John's suggestion, I find Fernox LS-X joint sealer to be remarkably effective in any situation of a potentially leaky joint. In cases where sealing something that is dry, I've never known it to let me down, (on a boat, or at home), and any joint made with it can still easily be broken if required in future, and quite easily cleaned up.
As an aside, it's not so good in cases where water is coming through, and the only option is to apply to a wet surface. But even here I have had some success, and such an arrangement is currently stemming a leak where my stern tube screws into the part welded into the hull, (pending a dry docking and proper investigation, of course !).
-
Congratulations Steve! I look forward to seeing the pics. Regarding Cotswold, now sadly under offer by someone else (none of you, I hope, grrr!) yes that was a second stove in the boatmans cabin, would have been perfect for cooking a few spuds on and keeping me warm when I was cruising in the winter months! Damn me and my procrastination!
Sorry that the boat you had your eye on is now under offer elsewhere.
I'm kind of curious though, as although I've only recently returned to narrow boat ownership, I had my last boat back about the time that Cotswold was constructed.
I'd say that building even the bottom in a 12mm plate in the 1970s would have been pretty unusual, (half that being my recollection of the norm for a reasonable new build then). If the whole hull is in 12 mil plate, as the brochure implies, I think it would have been a very unusual beastie then, and still pretty out of the norm now.
I don't know the builder quoted, but I'd be intrigued if people know of many other hulls built for leisure or residential use on the canals to anything like this kind of spec.... (At what plate spec does it become so heavy that even if there is no added ballast, it's simply drawing more than one would want ?).
We have a subtly different feature with our "new" (1995) boat, which although having a fairly normal 10 mil bottom, and 6 mil hull sides, has been built with 5 mil topsides throughout. This makes the cabin heavier than the norm, so although not unstable, it can start rolling rather more readily than some lighter constructed boats, and will perhaps do so for longer. Our surveyor said its OK, but we should not load the top further with things like earth filled plant boxes, or the like. A case of "more is not necessarily better", but at least it means no more plants to have to keep watering!
-
I think it was Paul McCartney actually....
"Someone sent us some seeds, so we planted them. Three of them came up illegal"
-
Thanks to all for your advice.
I think I have cracked it today, actually - and my experience is in line with the answers above....
Firstly my new pump had documentation implying it was a 45 psi model, but I think it's actually a 30 psi cut-out model. So it probably cuts in when pressure drops to somewhgere just over half that. (I believe that number may be around 18 psi). So going on the "few psi less than that" theory, I have reduced the pre-load in the accumulator to about 15 psi. (In fact I think the guage I was using was inaccurate as well, and I'd actually got it pressurised close to 25 psi previously - well above what I now think the cut-in setting of the switch is).
It now works VERY much better, and the whole set-up behaves much as I would expect. In particular the pump now avoids rapid on-off cycling when only low flows of water are being drawn off.
Once again, it's great to share with those who have been there before. Thanks again.
)
Sorry mods, northern and ex Raf humour slipping out there!
Skin Tank / Overheating Advice, Please
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
Doesn't have to be now !
If you are as tired as me, then please have the noggin, and wait on composing the reply !
I forgot to mention the water pump pulley bit...
No, I don't have the option of a pulley with more than one diameter for the belt.
But I don't think my issue is not being able to circulate the water fast enough.
Even when things are working OK, (as today) then water is being pumped to the skin tank fast enough for it to get hot all the way down, and for water that is less than fully cooled to be recirculated.
If the pump worked faster, it might just be "sucking" uncooled water back quicker!