nicknorman
-
Posts
23,959 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
121
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by nicknorman
-
-
4 hours ago, Jon57 said:
Hope you're using metal studding. Far easier and better for damp situations. 👍
No, but will use some DPC membrane to keep the damp from moving into the wood since they don’t make wood like they used to. The entire house is made from granite walls with internal timber framing pegged into the granite, and lath and plaster. It’s lasted since 1880 so wood will be fine!
1 hour ago, Tonka said:Wouldn't insulative lime plaster be better. This is what I was going to use on our cowshed holiday let conversion which is stone built. Ty Mawr have a lot of good gen on it. The architect wanted me to do it similar to what you have stated but all the listed property info puts me off
No, the Victorian Scottish house with granite walls and no DPC only “works” because there is a ventilated air gap between the granite and the inner room lining. -
3 hours ago, Tonka said:
What insulation are you using in the kitchen out of interest?
It will be Kingspan or equivalent between the studding, leaving an air gap between the insulation and the granite walls as that has to be ventilated. Not quite sure how thick it will be yet, I don’t want to reduce the room size much. Maybe only 50mm but even that will be massively better than lath and plaster between room and externally ventilated wall space. -
53 minutes ago, BEngo said:
Not that I have seen anywhere. Be a bugger to get a conventional torque wrench to them anyway, though a big torque screwdriver might work.
I usually go for finger tight with the ball end of an allen key, plus about 1/3 of a turn. Some stove rope is softer and needs a bit more.
Agree, but at that age a full dismantle and clean with new rope would deffo be a good idea. IRAN for those who remember it. Old age ( assisted by winter damp) tends to make the rope go hard and encourages rust wedging between the sides and the back/front. Change the rope on the door seals too.
Certainly if the logistics were easier I’d be keen to take the stove home and refurbish if properly. But circumstances are conspiring against me, I have a full calendar apart from 5 days on the boat with the in-laws culminating in the BSS. Maybe if I just have the new stove top on the boat and say I will sort if before winter the BSS chap will be OK, it is after all just an advisory for a private boat and the stove works fine as it is. On return from boat I then have 1 week at the gliding club followed straight afterwards by tackling the house kitchen - completely gutting the room back to the granite walls and re-lining with insulation, followed by new kitchen units. That will take many weeks and possibly run past the BSS expiry end of Nov, so I really need the boat to pass first time! -
1 minute ago, Tonka said:
Can't you have it delivered to the marina ?
No they are a bit funny about that, and anyway what would I do with the old one? It’s 12 years old of “leisure” use so should still have plenty of life left,
-
I did look at a new or refurbished one but it’s not just the cost, it’s the logistics of living 400 miles away from the boat. I can easily put a top plate in the car next time we go down, an entire stove out and in is a lot harder to organise.
-
The top on our Squirrel cracked open last year. It is right at the edge near the front. No gas leaks out etc but really I need to fix it ESPECIALLY as BSS is due soon. Although it is only an advisory for private boats, it doesn’t look good…
So my question is, apart from the new top and new screws and washers, do I need anything else? Is there rope sealing between the top and the sides? No doubt it will be a pain to get the screws out and I am concerned that it cracked in the first place due to the sides swelling slightly from corrosion and thus the new top might not easily fit. Any advice on this job welcome…
-
2 hours ago, IanD said:
You can also get the opposite problem using switches for low-voltage/low-current DC which were intended for HV AC -- the contact materials are optimised for current capacity and can oxidise, without the HV to break though this you get poor contacts at LV DC... 😞
My LED lighting also uses a Hafele centralised controller so the actual (24V) light switching/dimming is done by MOSFETs, the on/off wall switches just tell this what to do but AFAIK they switch logic-level DC signals to the controller.
For logic level switching you really want gold plated contacts because otherwise as you say, a tiny oxide layer can prevent the voltage getting through. I originally had some quite expensive boat lighting momentary action switches - but they turned out to be fairly crap for the above reason (just switching logic level virtually zero current) and I replaced them with keyboard "tactile buttons" on my own design pcb (because there is a group of 6) with 3d printed facia. Now works flawlessly.
-
1
-
-
Most switches that are rated for ac, also have a current rating for dc which is usually quite a bit less. But with a house light switch probably rated at at least 6A ac, when running a led or 2 at 12v dc, it will be operating at much lower current and thus last adequately. Of course the whole concept of moving bits of brass around to turn things on and off is pretty archaic, all our boat lighting (and everything else) is switched using MOSFETS.
-
2 hours ago, IanD said:
I couldn't agree more... 🙂
The problem is that there is no such certification/training for LFP batteries on boats, and right now no plan that the JWG can find to bring one into being. We are investigating whether any of the training/certification authorities could/would put such a scheme together, possibly based on the ones that already exist for domestic EESS systems which are in many ways similar to boat LFP installations (solar, batteries, inverter/charger...) -- do a Google search for EESS training.
There are a few costs and requirements though:Course Overview- Duration: Typically 2 to 3 days for standalone EESS, or 5 days when combined with Solar PV.
- Cost: Generally ranges from £600 to £750 + VAT depending on the provider and accreditation body.
- Key Content: Covers the IET Code of Practice for Electrical Energy Storage Systems, MCS standards (MIS 3012), battery principles, system design, initial verification, and DNO (Distribution Network Operator) notifications.
Entry Requirements- Must be a practicing, competent electrician aged 18 or over.
- Must hold a Level 3 Electrotechnical qualification (such as an NVQ Level 3 or equivalent historical qualification).
- Must hold a valid BS 7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations (18th Edition) qualification. [1, 2]
I should also point out that apart from the cost the entry requirements would make it impossible for most DIY installers to qualify, including you... 😞
Another problem is that there are 35M houses in the UK which could/might have such systems fitted, so there's a huge market with a big demand for installers who can make a good living out of it, and a high demand for training courses which are widely available:
Major UK Providers and Options- Logic4Training: Offers LCL Awards Level 3 Battery Storage training locally at centers including Northolt and Sittingbourne.
- NICEIC Shop: Provides an EAL-assessed Level 3 Award spanning 2 days plus a half-day assessment across multiple UK locations.
- Trade Skills 4U: Runs the City & Guilds 2923-34 Level 3 Award over 3 days.
- Windsor Forest Colleges Group: Delivers BPEC Level 3 EESS training over 2 days with practical and theory testing.
- Explore a combined course option via NAPIT Training.
- Review certification details at BPEC.
Given that the number of boats is *far* smaller it's not going to be easy to persuade institute(s) to invest the time and effort to devise a boat-specific -- or better still, inland-waterway-specific -- training course. But that's exactly what the JWG is looking into doing, along with other things like trying to avoid full MCC/RCA re-certification for LFP installs.
Your last paragraph is twisting the truth again, nobody is saying what you claim. The simple fact is that no safety regimen in any field takes the attitude of "we're so certain a problem will never happen (again?) because we've taken lots of precautions, we don't have to worry about the consequences or do anything to mitigate them *if* it happens (because it won't)". That's what you're trying to do here, and I'm afraid that your idea is shot down in flames (literally...) by what actually happened last year... 😞
I understand *why* you're objecting to any LFP battery venting requirement, but your logic simply doesn't stand up. Trying to persuade anyone professional (e.g. regulators, insurers, risk assessors) that you don't need to take precautions against the consequences of an LFP battery fire/explosion because it's never going to happen might have worked before the ABC fire, but not after it.
Apart from anything else, anyone who has been through the kind of training course above (which includes fire safety precautions) would never install a system on that basis, because their professional liability insurance wouldn't cover them and they would probably be disbarred for incompetence.
If you don't agree, you're welcome to try and change their minds on this -- why don't you form an "LFP are really safe" working group (backed by facts, obviously...) and go for it?
Isn't AI wonderful! But anyway, and taking up your habit of emboldening things, as I said despite the wings falling off the plane there is still no requirement to wear a parachute when flying. You don't seem to understand this crucial point that once you reduce the probability of a disaster happening sufficiently (even though not to zero), you no longer need to cater for it. If you try to do so, you tie yourself up into knots (of parachute cord!)
Currently, starting from such a low base, there is massive opportunity to address the installation process rather than worrying about what might happen when it is done badly - and lets face it, a Li cell gassing is not really in the same league as the wings of a plane falling off.
Yes I get that there is currently not qualification or courses, that is the problem that should be addressed. As you say, linking in with domestic battery installations would be a good start, with a little add-on course to add "boats", exactly the same as gas safe people need add-ons to work on lpg and boats. The costs you quote are small beer for a professional.
This is what you should be pushing. It is outrageous that anyone can set themselves up as a "marine electrician" and install Li batteries for money, without necessarily having the slightest idea what they are doing. You can't do it in houses, so why is it OK on residential boats?
I see that as being particularly offensive. DIY people doing their own thing, either well or badly, is less of an issue because generally it will be them suffering the consequences of incompetence. It is exactly the same with lpg on boats - I can install a complete lpg system on my boat if I like. It will of course be checked at the next BSS but that might be 3 years away. By law I can do gas work on our house if I like, provided I am competent to do so. That will never be checked. Or if the house blows up I will rightly be imprisoned because clearly I was not competent.
But if you are paying a professional to do a job that has potential safety issues, there should be an expectation that they are competent. At the moment there can be no such expectation.
I don't have a dog in that fight because I have already installed my system and any legislation regarding who can install is highly unlikely to be retrospective.
In summary, just like the GSIUR, you should need to be qualified and a member of a trade body (with insurance) to install Li systems for money. If you are DIY, you should be competent. By law.
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just now, IanM said:The thing is that people in each group considered theirs to be the only one that mattered and their opinions were correct.
How fortunate we are that we don’t have people like that on here.-
2
-
7
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, robtheplod said:seems odd to have a forum where everyone is required to have the same view?
Not odd really, that is the essence of Facebook groups and why I think they are the devil incarnate. You set up a group and surround yourself with like minded “groupthink” people, no dissent allowed. And then you think that is the only valid truth because everyone agrees with you.
-
8
-
3 hours ago, IanD said:
Oh come on Nick, stop making childish and misleading comparisons.
The bit in bold is exactly what all this is about -- not helped by the reluctance of ABC to reveal any details of what happened.
All the stuff that is being put forward by you and others as "this will prevent such an event happening again, so we don't need venting" -- quality electrics, backup overvoltage protection, proper design, professional/expert installation -- was (or should have been) already there in the ABC boat, and is all in the Guidance Note recommendations because they're jolly good ideas... 🙂
But in spite of all this something went badly wrong, the batteries gassed, the (unvented) gases built up, and the boat exploded.
So it's illogical to say that taking all those precautions will stop this ever happening again -- because they *didn't* stop it the first time, did they?
Nobody is saying "we must make all boaters with Li have battery boxes vented to outside with enormous fanned vents" -- you can do whatever you want to stop gases getting into the interior of the boat where people are and building up, there are various ways to do this -- just like with LA batteries, and as the BSS/RCR rules already imply with the comments about battery gases.
But what is unlikely to be allowed (regulators? insurers?) in future (when?) is what the ABC boat did, just putting LFP batteries openly inside the boat, because that's why it blew up in spite of the design features that should have stopped it happening but didn't... 😞
I don't like all this any more than you do (I might have to modify my boat to prevent gas buildup under the stern) -- but at least I understand why this is needed, perhaps because I read the ISO standard all the way to the end, including the sections describing venting and battery thermal runaway/outgassing... 😉
You still don’t get it. Let me explain further…In the case of the wings falling off, well the aircraft had been designed and maintained by highly qualified professionals. So did the investigators say, as you are saying, “well the aircraft was designed and built by highly qualified professionals and so there is nothing more we can do to prevent a recurrence, let’s buy shares in parachute manufacturing companies!”
No, they will have look closely at the processes involved to try to identify what went wrong, and address it. Maybe someone lost their licence, I don’t know. But those shares in the parachute companies never went volcanic.
In the case of the ABC, we are starting from an extremely low base. The system designers and installers almost certainly had no relevant qualification and certainly no licence to practice. They were self-professed “professional experts” who set up a business to earn money without having to have any knowledge, experience or competence. So a good starting point to prevent a recurrence would be a qualification that ensures people understand how to professionally install Li boating systems safely, such that the probability of a venting event is similar to the probability of the wings falling off a plane.
A good starting point is NOT to say “well they were professionals, it happened, and so the only recourse is to take steps to reduce the impact when it happens again.”
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
So when the wings fell off the Canadair plane near Marseille a decade or so ago, was the reaction from professional and highly qualified accident investigators “OMG the wings fell off a plane, we must in future make provision for this happening again by making all passengers wear parachutes”?
Amazingly, no it wasn’t. Instead the effort went into trying to work out why the wings fell off and to prevent recurrence.
And so we come to the ABC boat which was such an insignificant event that there was no sort of formal investigation at all. And the reaction is “we must make all boaters with Li batteries wear parachutes” Oops I meant “we must make all boaters with Li have battery boxes vented to outside with enormous fanned vents.” And never mind focussing the effort on prevention. It just sets a wrong and TBH rather childish and uninformed tone.
-
5
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Li cell rupture and venting is potentially very dangerous and needs to be mitigated against. But it’s being tackled in the wrong way. It is not feasible to create adequate ventilation provision on a narrowboat that stops the gasses getting into the habitable area and/or stops them encroaching adjacent boats or people and/or does not introduce other risks eg sinking due to large vents and/or is not prohibitively expensive.
In aviation, the wings falling off an aircraft is potentially very dangerous and needs to be mitigated against. So do all the passengers have parachutes so they can be saved when the wings fall off? No, because that is not feasible. Instead, the effort is directed to ensuring that the wings don’t fall off in the first place. There is still a tiny chance that the wings will fall off, the certification standard does not assure that it can never ever happen, but it is considered remote enough to be an acceptable risk, and evidentially 99.99% of aviation accidents are caused by things other than the wings falling off. Although it has happened.
So it should be with Li batteries. The emphasis should be on preventing the rupture, not on what to do after it has happened. So for example it could be a requirement to have an independent battery disconnect device attached to the battery terminals, which would check for pack over-voltage, high cell temperature etc and disconnect autonomously. This extra layer of security on top of a properly designed charge control system and BMS with ability to disconnect, would ensure an adequate level of safety, ie making venting not impossible, but an extremely remote possibility which is as acceptable as the possibility of the wings falling off an airliner.
-
5
-
- Popular Post
4 hours ago, Llamedos said:Or as I’ve been known to say to people… It’s not against the rules to fart at the dinner table, but it doesn’t make it socially acceptable.
Oh dear, perhaps that’s where I’ve been going wrong?
-
5
-
It’s just the KandA really. We’ve only cruised it once, not rushing to go back. We were passing some moored skank boats behind a wide beam hire boat that was really crawling along, as we passed a particularly unsuitable boat (sailing yacht) barely moving mostly in neutral, the owner came out shouting angrily that he was going to “shit on our boat!” for making his boat rock a bit. I’m so annoyed that I was too slow to shout back “well bring your own toilet roll, we’ve run out!.”
The general rule is that the further north you get, the nicer the people. There are too many rats in London and the SE. And that is just the people! MK is not too bad.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, davidg said:
Steerer and chimney side/sidebed side.
Enough of this driver/port/starboard nonsense already.Ok can we move on to “mooring up”? NO! you don’t moor UP! You can either moor, or you can tie up. That’s it.
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, dogless said:
I realise to a glider pilot having an engine may be a shock, but steering is effectively all that's done on a modern boat, and from observation seems the action that causes most issues for new boaters.
Moving the lever forward and backwards isn't the most common reported problem (and yes I know a small number use wheels and gears).
But we are all at liberty to name it as we please ... I know what you mean by driving and you know what I mean by steering.
The fact that I'm right @nicknormanand you're wrong, is neither here nor there 😁
Rog
You are of course perfectly entitled to call it what you please, and be as wrong as you please!I only mentioned it to bring out that “steering” and “driving” have different meanings, stemming from history. The operator of a coach and horses is said to be “driving”, because they are in charge of the means of propulsion as well as the steering, whereas someone steering a horse drawn boat or butty is the steerer because they are not in charge of the means of propulsion.
It is quite amusing and ironic that people wishing to be all historically correct choose to use the word “steering” which they hope will give them gravitas, when in fact all it does is expose the fact that they don’t understand the origins of these words. It’s a bit like people who garnish their boats in fake rivets.
Oooops…
-
1
-
-
Sorry but I think “steering” is a little pretentious. Of course back in the day of horses, all the person on the boat had to do was steer - hence steerer was the appropriate term. But that was 100 years ago and now we have engines, there is more to operating a boat than just steering it. You have to drive it, ie forwards, backwards, different engine speeds, in just the same way as you do in a car. Hence the correct term these days, for anyone not trying to cling on to those rosey horse drawn days of yore, is “Driving”. Unless it’s butty of course.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
That seems a bit 'silly'.
The primary use of the boat is commercial as it it generating income for the owner.
C&RT themselves require a 'hire boat' to have a commercial licence, a commercial BSS and commercial insurance. Why ?
Using your suggestion, if I hire a car to go to the shops in, the car is a 'recreational / private vehicle', which is obvioulsy incorrect.
It is a commercial hire, and, as most of us will have seen on our own car insurance T&Cs a private car cannot be used for "hire or reward"
You are erroneously conflating insurance issues with build standards. A hire car is built and maintained (including the MOT) to exactly the same standards as a private car, it is only the insurance that is different. The same applies to narrowboats.
-
9 minutes ago, MtB said:
Including wide locks!
And those ones in London - Bow Locks. -
1 hour ago, Tom Richmond said:
This is an excellent assessment criteria!
Less posts obviously indicates a higher ability level, while more posts indicates a lack of knowledge and a need for confirmation...
Very true, although it is of course “fewer posts” not “less posts”. Grammatical imprecision probably has a direct correlation with hitting lock sides on entry.
-
32 minutes ago, blackrose said:
Yes, that's true, but the same is true if your wife, son, daughter, or if you trash your boat. The point is the insurance would still be in place.
Phew! Just as well I don't have a wife, son or daughter! But the point is that someone moving your boat professionally should have their own insurance. In the case of the OP, he doesn't want payment so I guess that doesn't count as "professional". But equally you have no idea whether they are competent or not. Most probably they are. But you don't know.
If some random towpath person said "I'd quite like to borrow your boat free of charge for a while, as I know you are off on holiday for a couple of weeks" what would your reaction be?
-
Well yes, but if someone trashes your boat on your insurance, it reflects badly on your own claims record
Victron and Zigbee
in Boat Equipment
Posted
Well I'd say it is still used quite a lot in home automation for very low bandwidth data due to very low power and better range than Bluetooth, with easier meshing. I think you'd be struggling to get a year out of an AA battery supplying a BLE device.