Ray T Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, matty40s said: I've already stated that earlier in the thread and also in my feedback to the student.? Ah, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam & Di Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 22 hours ago, H01ppy said: My main ideas are more looking at some form of seat on the roof of the boat between the hatch and the gunnel, that can be sat on by other passengers or leant on by whoever is manning the tiller. As you have clarified that you actually are talking of a traditional narrowboat in the style of an ex-working boat, and Ray and others have supplied pictures of working boatmen sitting on the side of the hatch. 18 hours ago, Ray T said: Alice Collins and Bob Grantham. .... there is no way that any 'passenger' could be sat like that with the steerer stood at the tiller. Tam Edited January 9, 2021 by Tam & Di lousy spilling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray T Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) Mark99 of this parish has made a seat for putting between the slide runner and the gunnel. I suggest you contact him. I have copies of his pictures but they are not mine to post. There is this but I would not recommend sitting like this at all. Edited January 9, 2021 by Ray T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murflynn Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Athy said: Classics, from Oxford. what class of degree? Wiki: Johnson was awarded an upper second-class degree, and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first. that says a lot IMHO Edited January 9, 2021 by Murflynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Murflynn said: what class of degree? Wiki: Johnson was awarded an upper second-class degree, and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first. that says a lot IMHO Drat, I've just been looking it up, and I get back to find that you've answered your own question! Yes, a 2.1, presumably a B.A. Certainly your quote suggests that he was academically strong and aimed high, but they don't give upper seconds away like sweeties at Oxford, so it was a very creditable achievement. I don't know if he went on to get an M.A. At Cambridge back then, the rule was that after you graduated a certain number of terms "must elapse" (six, I think), you then paid the University some money, and you automatically qualified for an M.A. As I'm more of a Cambridge man myself, I don't know if Oxford had the same system. Edited January 9, 2021 by Athy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracy D'arth Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 21 minutes ago, Athy said: Drat, I've just been looking it up, and I get back to find that you've answered your own question! Yes, a 2.1, presumably a B.A. Certainly your quote suggests that he was academically strong and aimed high, but they don't give upper seconds away like sweeties at Oxford, so it was a very creditable achievement. I don't know if he went on to get an M.A. At Cambridge back then, the rule was that after you graduated a certain number of terms "must elapse" (six, I think), you then paid the University some money, and you automatically qualified for an M.A. As I'm more of a Cambridge man myself, I don't know if Oxford had the same system. Paid for MA,, must have "cantab" suffix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Carter Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Athy said: Drat, I've just been looking it up, and I get back to find that you've answered your own question! Yes, a 2.1, presumably a B.A. Certainly your quote suggests that he was academically strong and aimed high, but they don't give upper seconds away like sweeties at Oxford, so it was a very creditable achievement. I don't know if he went on to get an M.A. At Cambridge back then, the rule was that after you graduated a certain number of terms "must elapse" (six, I think), you then paid the University some money, and you automatically qualified for an M.A. As I'm more of a Cambridge man myself, I don't know if Oxford had the same system. Interesting. When I got my second class BA at Oxford in 1979 - in Physics - there was no subdivision into 2.1 and 2.2. I didn't bother with the MA upgrade, but I remember it was available to buy after two years. Wiki: Historically, the University of Oxford awarded Fourth Class Honours degrees and, until the late-1970s, did not distinguish between upper and lower Second Class Honours degrees. Does this mean that all this time I have had a 2.1 equivalent after all? Edited January 9, 2021 by Richard Carter because I went to wikipedia ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 4 minutes ago, Richard Carter said: Interesting. When I got my second class BA at Oxford in 1979 - in Physics - there was no subdivision into 2.1 and 2.2. I didn't bother with the MA upgrade, but I remember it was available to buy after two years. How come you got a B.A. rather than a B.Sc. in physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Carter Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Athy said: How come you got a B.A. rather than a B.Sc. in physics? I think they only awarded BA degrees. No truck with this new-fangled science, you know ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 3 hours ago, Ray T said: There is this but I would not recommend sitting like this at all. Especially at a location like this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murflynn Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 2 hours ago, Athy said: How come you got a B.A. rather than a B.Sc. in physics? if you have to ask the question then obvs you didn't attend Oxford Uni. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenataomm Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 I went to Oxford in the late 70s. I think it was a Thursday as it was half closing. I am pleased to witness OP approaching A levels with the planning that further and higher education will dictate. I do question if the choice of boat has the widest field of options open to exploration and improvement. It concerns me the project report may be very short concluding that due to potential risks to life, the current design met the need and was the safest for the risks that were acceptable at the time. Semi-trad and cruiser sterns only having been around since the late 50s still have storage, seating, social area, weed hatch, engine access, bottled gas storage, drainage etc. to play around with. The so called "traditional" back end of a working boat was designed totally for utility and practicality over a hundred years ago. The counter was dangerous and not even intended for the steerer to stand while working. So not suitable for seating.. As for the roof or cabin sides, you rarely see photos of working families perched up there unless they were babies chained to the chimney, or everybody's posing in their Sunday best for a christening camera. Meanwhile I'd have to know a stretch of canal extremely well before chancing my life obstructing the steerer's view while risking getting squashed under a bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 4 hours ago, Murflynn said: if you have to ask the question then obvs you didn't attend Oxford Uni. See post 55. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Brooks Posted January 10, 2021 Report Share Posted January 10, 2021 11 hours ago, zenataomm said: I went to Oxford in the late 70s. I think it was a Thursday as it was half closing. I am pleased to witness OP approaching A levels with the planning that further and higher education will dictate. I do question if the choice of boat has the widest field of options open to exploration and improvement. It concerns me the project report may be very short concluding that due to potential risks to life, the current design met the need and was the safest for the risks that were acceptable at the time. Semi-trad and cruiser sterns only having been around since the late 50s still have storage, seating, social area, weed hatch, engine access, bottled gas storage, drainage etc. to play around with. The so called "traditional" back end of a working boat was designed totally for utility and practicality over a hundred years ago. The counter was dangerous and not even intended for the steerer to stand while working. So not suitable for seating.. As for the roof or cabin sides, you rarely see photos of working families perched up there unless they were babies chained to the chimney, or everybody's posing in their Sunday best for a christening camera. Meanwhile I'd have to know a stretch of canal extremely well before chancing my life obstructing the steerer's view while risking getting squashed under a bridge. Pretty much my thoughts re the narrowness of the project. Probably fine of O level but A level? The survey seemed not to have much depth as well. I don't necessarily blame the OP but wonder about his advice and supervision. FWIW I think standing in front of the tiller arc thing is more then a little overstated. I say this having been pushed in by the tiller a single time and that was when trying to control the engine and tiller while looking up the side of the boat to take up slack to pull another boat off the mud. The vital thing is, in my view, to never stand in the tiller arc when reversing or swinging the stern around. Stepping forward in those situations should be second nature. I don't see how the tiller can possibly throw you over the side in ahead and in more or less a straight line, that includes going around normal canal bends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doratheexplorer Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 I tried to do the survey but gave up. Too many yes/no options, when my answer would be 'it depends'. For example: "3. If there were some form of seating would you use it?". Well it depends doesn't it? If the seat was comfortable and safe, I might use it. If not, I wouldn't. On 10/01/2021 at 09:16, Tony Brooks said: FWIW I think standing in front of the tiller arc thing is more then a little overstated. I say this having been pushed in by the tiller a single time and that was when trying to control the engine and tiller while looking up the side of the boat to take up slack to pull another boat off the mud. The vital thing is, in my view, to never stand in the tiller arc when reversing or swinging the stern around. Stepping forward in those situations should be second nature. I don't see how the tiller can possibly throw you over the side in ahead and in more or less a straight line, that includes going around normal canal bends. Agree. I'd love to know whether anyone has ever been knocked in by the tiller while going forwards. Also, in the situation you're highly unlikely to come into contact with the prop even if you did fall in. People fall of the stern of boats all the time, and it's mainly from things like tripping and slipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunny Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 09/01/2021 at 14:09, Jerra said: He is certainly a classic something or other. Typical lefty give it a rest Stalin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murflynn Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 09/01/2021 at 23:57, Athy said: See post 55. hard to believe you went to any respected uni if you didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas C King Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 10/01/2021 at 09:16, Tony Brooks said: FWIW I think standing in front of the tiller arc thing is more then a little overstated. I say this having been pushed in by the tiller a single time and that was when trying to control the engine and tiller while looking up the side of the boat to take up slack to pull another boat off the mud. The vital thing is, in my view, to never stand in the tiller arc when reversing or swinging the stern around. Stepping forward in those situations should be second nature. I don't see how the tiller can possibly throw you over the side in ahead and in more or less a straight line, that includes going around normal canal bends. Phew, some balance. I'm a newbie so was wondering why our trad stern has a stool if it's so dangerous. I sit on it if I just need to nudge the tiller occasionally with my elbow. Otherwise I stand in the engine bit. We do have gennie cables as an exciting trip hazard, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas C King Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 09/01/2021 at 16:46, Athy said: How come you got a B.A. rather than a B.Sc. in physics? The hangovers from being one of the oldest institutions. Physics was taught before BScs were invented, and before they were invented Oxford didn't allow you to study hard science until you had studied a liberal art (too difficult, innit). Hence, to allow an undergrad physics degree, it has to be a BA. But, you can get an MSc in a hard science because by then you would have studied a BA (a hard science one or not). Another example: most doctorates are not in philosophy in the modern sense, but they are in the old sense. So you get a PhD, unless you do it at Oxford, in which case it's a D.Phil... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpcdriver Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 9 minutes ago, Thomas C King said: The hangovers from being one of the oldest institutions. Physics was taught before BScs were invented, and before they were invented Oxford didn't allow you to study hard science until you had studied a liberal art (too difficult, innit). Hence, to allow an undergrad physics degree, it has to be a BA. But, you can get an MSc in a hard science because by then you would have studied a BA (a hard science one or not). Strange things can also happen with new subjects. I graduated in Computer Science in 1982 from York, as part of one of the first coherts to be allowed to study full Computer Science (rather than in combination with another subject). I was given the choice to have BA or BSc on my degree certificate, as there was still ongoing debate as to whether it was a hard science. I chose BSc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas C King Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, jpcdriver said: Strange things can also happen with new subjects. I graduated in Computer Science in 1982 from York, as part of one of the first coherts to be allowed to study full Computer Science (rather than in combination with another subject). I was given the choice to have BA or BSc on my degree certificate, as there was still ongoing debate as to whether it was a hard science. I chose BSc. Personally I think the hardest bits of Comp. Sci. are actually formal-philosophical. A mixture of mathematical formalisation, with philosophical analysis, and theorems that have deeply philosophical implications. And most of the science bits, in the sense of empirical science, are really about using computers as a modelling tool for x (e.g., society), which isn't comp. sci. any more than astronomy is telescope science. The other science bits around how people use computers, including empirical science around the usability of languages, is partly psychology, and in some cases wholly. It's a mish mash. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBiscuits Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Thomas C King said: Personally I think the hardest bits of Comp. Sci. are actually formal-philosophical. A mixture of mathematical formalisation, with philosophical analysis, and theorems that have deeply philosophical implications. Nah, it's creative writing combined with creative accounting. Oh, hang on that's big IT projects not computer science ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas C King Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said: Nah, it's creative writing combined with creative accounting. Oh, hang on that's big IT projects not computer science ... Yes, the geeks are still at the bottom of that hierarchy. But all modern Comp. Sci. degrees have a bit of 'real world' stuff where you learn how to alienate your team mates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo47 Posted January 11, 2021 Report Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) Re the tractor seat solution, one if the hire boats I was on in the late 1970's had a removable seat for the steerer consisting of a circular metal disc attached to a metal pole that fitted into a deep socket recessed in the deck. It did have a large rear deck and the seat was well inside the rear rail. Edited January 11, 2021 by Ronaldo47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now