These new log burner rules.......

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

I think it's the most abundant element in the universe rather chemical. 

 

But the main problem is, surely, that most of it isn't here on Earth.

Most of anything isn't on earth

 

[rusty69]

Just now, tree monkey said:

Most of anything isn't on earth

 

Except perhaps humans

And elephants 

And bit coins 

 

And..... 

[tree monkey]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Except perhaps humans

Perhaps 

 

[Tonka]

But surely by using Hydrogen we are depleting the amount of water that the earth has. H2O minus H is not water. And the earth cannot make water. There is the same amount now as there was when the earth formed

[Higgs]

"Hyrogen on Earth. It is impossible to determine exactly how much hydrogen there is on Earth; as it has such a low density, it escapes the planet's gravitational attraction. However, hydrogen exists on Earth in many compounds, such as water, which is actually the most abundant compound on Earth. Hydrogen also exists in almost all organic compounds and makes up about 61 percent of all the atoms in the human body."

 

 

[tree monkey]

My mistake then, I did originally think it was just helium escaping, seems like it is hydrogen as well, oh well serves me right for not bothering to check 

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Except perhaps humans

And elephants 

And bit coins 

 

And..... 

 

Ah but were were discussing the abundance of elements in the universe, not elephants. 

 

I think you misread it! 

 

 

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

My mistake then, I did originally think it was just helium escaping, seems like it is hydrogen as well, oh well serves me right for not bothering to check 

 

It's only a quote. But hydrogen is lighter than helium. Helium is the second fuel the sun will use, when its hydrogen runs out. 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Higgs

[Momac]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I think it's the most abundant element in the universe rather chemical. 

[nairb123]

I have to say it's been an interesting lesson as to why Hydrogen is not going to be saving the planet just yet and maybe never any good on a narrow boat.  I'm sure it will find a valuable use in some applications.  I have actually learnt something worthwhile.

 

Meanwhile, I wonder how quickly the local councils will start to implement the fines for smoke and how they will do it.  How do you measure and average of 3g of particulates/hr.  Or is it just down to the council worker with their clip board making a subjective decision.

I have worked out that the boat is moored well outside of a "smoke less zone" so should be free from hassle for a few years anyway.

The house is different.

[magnetman]

It is interesting to see the move to grams of particulates. This seems to be aligning fires with output from internal combustion engines.

Presumably it would need a sensor right on the flue itself like they do with cars at mot time. 

 

Previously it has been all about the colour of the smoke and the standard test was the ringelmann scale. 

 

 

 

Testing for exact emissions seems to me to be an impossible thing to achieve with something which is as variable in output as a multifuel stove on a boat. 

 

I reckon the smoke Nazis will eventually get it banned completely. 

 

 

[nairb123]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I reckon the smoke Nazis will eventually get it banned completely. 

 

 

Yes, I completely agree.

I think the huge problem is................. if it (smoke) can be seen then it's a problem.  If I were to pump carbon monoxide straight out of the top of the flue, nobody would see it.

I have a 2-stroke motorcycle.  Almost certainly puts out less pollutants than the 4x4's that hurtle past on the dual carriage way.  But the motorcycle leaves a blue smoke trail.  Their time (2-stroke bikes) will come too and be banned.

 

On a good note.  When they finally ban Diesel engines, I will be long past giving a toss.  Perhaps it will be back to horse-drawn boats.

[Arthur Marshall]

I suspect it's all a temporary fuss about nothing, because nothing will happen. Councils can't even afford to do what they should by law without going bankrupt these days.  I think smoky chimneys are the least of their problems. But it makes the government look as if they care about climate change, health and eco stuff without it costing them a penny.

[magnetman]

Wood burning stoves is a funny subject really. On the one hand you have (very few) people who can't do anything else then on the other hand you get people who view it as an essential luxury while being technically entirely unnecessary. 

 

In the middle you have the majority, who shell out huge amounts of money to heat their dwelling units with gas or electric. 

 

Even if councils and .gov don't do anything this could still cause some conflicts I think. 

 

Specially in areas with high population density. 

 

Everyone likes a wood fire. How can you not like it? It's just a basic natural way to deal with the heating problem. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Wood burning stoves is a funny subject really. On the one hand you have (very few) people who can't do anything else then on the other hand you get people who view it as an essential luxury while being technically entirely unnecessary. 

 

In the middle you have the majority, who shell out huge amounts of money to heat their dwelling units with gas or electric. 

 

Even if councils and .gov don't do anything this could still cause some conflicts I think. 

 

Specially in areas with high population density. 

 

Everyone likes a wood fire. How can you not like it? It's just a basic natural way to deal with the heating problem. 

 

 

I've got a store full of ash from a garden tree we cut down a couple years ago. When that's used up I'll wave goodbye to the stove without regret. On the boat I wouldn't use anything else, it's just impractical.

Strange how important this bit of pollution has suddenly become, and how quickly everyone forgot about the water companies pumping sewage everywhere. I wouldn't even think of suggesting it's because water companies make huge profits,  while the only people who would really suffer from stoves being banned would be those broke buggers who couldn't afford anything else, but would then have to put the little money they had into the power companies whether they liked it ir not.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've got a store full of ash from a garden tree we cut down a couple years ago

 

 

I could ask why you have kept the ash instead of just dumping it, did you wait for it to cool properly and ensure there was no CO before you put it in the shed  (but I won't ask)

[magnetman]

GCbPerish the thought ! 

 

I suppose one advantage is that the environment agency ends up so massively underfunded that one can keep a boat on their waterways and not suffer the consequences of excessive enforcement of anything. 

 

I quite like this but the shit in the rivers thing is bad news going forwards.

[Tacet]

On 03/02/2023 at 17:14, blackrose said:

 

I don't know of any boat with a solid fuel stove that could possibly reduce smoke to nil or even be compliant with smoke control regs. Mainly because a significant part of reducing emissions is burning efficiently and that requires a flue pipe which is long enough for the stove to draw properly. I think Morso specify a minimum 3.5m combined flue & chimney length for the Squirrel for example, which just isn't possible on a boat.

Compliance with a Smoke Control Order is not that difficult on a boat.  It is principally met by not burning an unauthorised fuel.  I.e a fuel that is not registered as smokeless.

Burning smokeless fuel still results in smoke, but that is another matter.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I could ask why you have kept the ash instead of just dumping it, did you wait for it to cool properly and ensure there was no CO before you put it in the shed  (but I won't ask)

I could have phrased that better...

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Compliance with a Smoke Control Order is not that difficult on a boat.  It is principally met by not burning an unauthorised fuel.  I.e a fuel that is not registered as smokeless.

Burning smokeless fuel still results in smoke, but that is another matter.

 

 

It is interesting to note that local authorities can not enforce against the smoke that is created when the fire is started up. 

 

I'm not sure how one could prove when a fire is being started up without having some sort of data logging thermometer in it. 

 

 

[nairb123]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suspect it's all a temporary fuss about nothing, because nothing will happen.

Hope you are right.  Altho I expect the communists to have a different opinion if elected.

I will be at the farm later this evening so if there is a smog around the Congleton area in the morning you can blame me........

[Ronaldo47]

11 hours ago, Tonka said:

But surely by using Hydrogen we are depleting the amount of water that the earth has. H2O minus H is not water. And the earth cannot make water. There is the same amount now as there was when the earth formed

According to some scientists, at least some of the earth's water may have come from space in the form of meterorites made of water ice. Apparently some of the asteroids consist of ice. 

 

Conversely, according to geologists, the level of the world's oceans has progressively dropped over geological time. Sediments which are now on the surface of the continents were laid down millenia ago in seas  that once covered them.  Sequences of erosional platforms terminating in what are called raised beaches (as they mark former beachlines of sea levels some 25', 50', 100', 400' and others above the present level ),  are widespread throughout the world.  Apparently even if all the water in the world's glaciers and polar icecaps melted, they would not return sea level to that of some of the more recent  (in geological time) raised beach levels. No-one seems to know where the water went.  Possibly  the ocean basins between the continents just used to be shallower, the diameter of the earth has expanded, or the impact of large meteors like the one that is supposed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, blasted water into space to form some of the icy asteroids, or something else. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[magnetman]

Apparently Gold came from other planets. I was really shocked as I thought it came from websites. 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Apparently Gold came from other planets. I was really shocked as I thought it came from websites. 

 

Don't be daft.

 

Gold comes from our grandmas or Argos, as any fule kno.

[DaveP]

On 04/02/2023 at 20:02, rusty69 said:

Does lotus 123 still exist? I learnt to drive that long before excel. 

I believe someone found, and released, a verion for Linux recently.  I've been meaning to load it onto a Pi for nostalgic purposes - that's today's indoor mission sorted.  I've always felt that Excel was far inferior....