C&RT License Survey

[magnetman]

I think MartynG has the idea that because there is less water in the lock the overall consumption of water (topic being discussed) must be less. 

 

 

It is an easy assumption as if the larger Boat somehow saves water by displacing it out of the lock when it goes in. 

[Bristolfashion]

I'm waiting for a "Eureka" moment! 

[LadyG]

On 28/11/2022 at 19:29, MtB said:

If boaters were willing to pay an economic price for their licenses that actually reflected the costs of running the canal system, the waterways might not be in the state they are in now.

 

 

But if I can't afford the economic price,  I'd be shivering in a hovel. That's not something I want to contemplate .

You are still working, but if you can't work any longer, or there is no demand for your skills and you have to do zero hours contracts,  you'll have to cur back, immediately.

One relies on some stability when making long term decisions,  most rely on steady income streams matching one's outgoings.

Edited December 17, 2023 by LadyG

[magnetman]

Deciding to live on a Boat is not a wise long term decision for a number of different rather obvious reasons. 

 

I do it as I only live in the present and have no future because it doesn't exist. 

 

For anyone doing long term planning living on a boat must be very nerve wracking. 

 

If it is on the canals then the CRT can clobber you or make life more difficult if they want to. If its on a river there is winter to contend with and mooring fees. 

 

All the while the boat and the occupant is ageing. 

 

Fun times to be had. 

[haggis]

29 minutes ago, LadyG said:

But if I can't afford the economic price,  I'd be shivering in a hovel. That's not something I want to contemplate .

You are still working, but if you can't work any longer, or there is no demand for your skills and you have to do zero hours contracts,  you'll have to cur back, immediately.

One relies on some stability when making long term decisions,  most rely on steady income streams matching one's outgoings.

Welcome to the real World where the financial situation has not been stable for years and we all have to cut our cloth according to our means. Expecting our income streams to continue as before is a bit naive. 

[magnetman]

Its odd that some people seem to think canals should be exempt from market forces. 

 

I don't understand why this is. 

 

The Pasta in Lidl was 29p about 18 months ago now its 41p. 

 

This is how it works. Canal licences have been too cheap for too long. 

 

Nobody wants to pay more but in the end if the CRT want to have more money there is not a lot you can do if you want to stay on their water. You could go unlicensed but then you put yourself in the S8 bracket and they can nab the boat then you really are screwed. 

 

 

 

 

 

As said you cut your coat according to your cloth. If you actually can't afford it there is a welfare state which can assist. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I think MartynG has the idea that because there is less water in the lock the overall consumption of water (topic being discussed) must be less. 

 

 

It is an easy assumption as if the larger Boat somehow saves water by displacing it out of the lock when it goes in. 

 

mmm…so you’re telling me it takes as much water to fill a lock with a fat boat in as it does if it were a tennis ball?

 

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Canal licences have been too cheap for too long.

market forces in action??🤷‍♀️

if they weren’t cheap very few people would be buying them 🤷‍♀️

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

mmm…so you’re telling me it takes as much water to fill a lock with a fat boat in as it does if it were a tennis ball?

 

Yes. It can't make any difference because the Boat or tennis ball is simply occupying space otherwise occupied by water. 

 

So if the space is occupied by water and the Boat or tennis ball is doing the same job then the water used to lift the Boat or ball is exactly the same amount as if it were lifting the equivalent amount of water.

 

It makes no difference. 

Ignore the fact it is a boat. All that is happening is the Boat is acting as a block of water. 

That block of water takes up space in a full lock it also takes up space in an empty lock. 

Boat going in removes water as it enters chamber. It then must add this water when the lock fills or it would not be raised high enough to make a level. 

 

Boat size not relevant IF it is floating. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

But if I can't afford the economic price,  I'd be shivering in a hovel

with mtb?

 

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

That's not something I want to contemplate

yes, I fully understand 

[agg221]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

mmm…so you’re telling me it takes as much water to fill a lock with a fat boat in as it does if it were a tennis ball?

 

To fill a lock, no. But, to work a fat boat or a tennis ball through the lock will take the same amount of water. It's the water used to change the level which is independent of what is in the lock.

 

Alec

[Peanut]

Yes, follow the water. You start with a lock full of water, you then put your fat boat into the lock. A fat boats worth of water returns to the top pound.

You lower the boat by letting out a locks worth of water, and reach the lower level.  When you leave the lock, a fat boats worth of water leaves the lower pound and fills the whole where the boat had been.

Exactly the same for the tennis ball, but a much smaller amount of water is displaced by the ball.

Magnetman beat me to it.

 

[magnetman]

I know it is upsetting but it isn't a Boat at all. Its just a shaped piece of water. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Yes. It can't make any difference because the Boat or tennis ball is simply occupying space otherwise occupied by water. 

 

So if the space is occupied by water and the Boat or tennis ball is doing the same job then the water used to lift the Boat or ball is exactly the same amount as if it were lifting the equivalent amount of water.

 

It makes no difference. 

Ignore the fact it is a boat. All that is happening is the Boat is acting as a block of water. 

if I had a two pints of beer in front of me:

1st full to brim with beer

Second full but with half a pint of ice cubes in,

 

I’d go for the first pint, it has more beer…simples 😃

the ice cubes have displaced 50% of the beer

Edited December 17, 2023 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[magnetman]

The idea of it being a Boat is an illusion and a red herring. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, agg221 said:

To fill a lock, no. But, to work a fat boat or a tennis ball through the lock will take the same amount of water. It's the water used to change the level which is independent of what is in the lock.

 

Alec

ok, I’m a tad confused,

I’ll have a beer and contemplate 🤔 

 

😃

[magnetman]

Just now, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

if I had a two pints of beer in front of me:

1st full to brim with beer

Second full but with half a pint of ice cubes in,

 

I’d go for the first pint, it has more beer…simples 😃

the ice cubes have displaced 50% of the water

Someone placed the ice cubes in the water when they were previously occupying space out of the water. 

 

That is the point. The boat is already in the water so its only function is acting the same as a block of water. 

 

If you craned it into the lock...

 

 

Once you accept that the Boat is acting in the same way as a block of water it becomes impossible to argue that a lock full of water and a lock full of Boat will use different amounts of water during a cycle. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Someone placed the ice cubes in the water when they were previously occupying space out of the water. 

 

That is the point. The boat is already in the water so its only function is acting the same as a block of water. 

 

If you craned it into the lock...

….yeah…but…the boat’s displaced the water either way, the water’s no longer there, 

PaulC gave an explanation which I can easily understand but I felt it was missing something.

 

but I’m out of here, 

physics ain’t my thing, I leave it to you folk 👍

 

..

 

[magnetman]

15 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

….yeah…but…the boat’s displaced the water either way, the water’s no longer there, 

PaulC gave an explanation which I can easily understand but I felt it was missing something.

 

but I’m out of here, 

physics ain’t my thing, I leave it to you folk 👍

 

..

 

It may have made a hole in the water by moving water out when it entered but that hole will need filling otherwise the lock will never level itself. 

 

Subtract then add = 0

In the case of an emptying lock the Boat makes a hole, moves water out but then this hole must accommodated by pushing the same amount of water out the other end before the lock can level itself. 

 

Amount out the top = amount out the bottom. If the Boat displaces 20 tonnes it will also push 20 tonnes out the bottom end because of the hole in the water. Same for anything else in the lock so the Boat, or object behaves as it were a block of water = no difference. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by magnetman

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It may have made a hole in the water by moving water out when it entered but that hole will need filling otherwise the lock will never level itself. 

 

Subtract then add = 0

In the case of an emptying lock the Boat makes a hole, moves water out but then this hole must accomodated by pushing the same amount of water out the other end. 

 

Amount out the top = amount out the bottom. If the boat displaces 20 tonnes it will also push 20 tonnes out the bottom end because of the hole in the water. 

 

 

how about another 20 tonner entering as the other exits, any water savings?

[magnetman]

I don't think so. 

 

Perhaps if one were to reverse into the lock it might help. 

 

Elastic bands can be useful. 

 

 

 

I'm starting to see this from another angle. 

 

Although the amount of water used is always the same the fact that a larger Boat will move more water -out- of the lock chamber when entering could be a factor in people thinking less water is being used. 

 

There could be a theory that this water which is pushed out of the lock is somehow 'saved' compared with a smaller Boat which pushes less water out when it goes into the lock. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

right, if we conclude that saving water is not dependent on boat size in locks:

waiting to share locks to conserve water is a waste of time?

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer
a bit of changing word order to make sense

[MtB]

I think the problem is semantics. The people who don't understand keep writing about "filling the lock" with a smaller or larger boat in it, starting with no water in the lock at all.

 

The process we are commenting on is how much water it takes to cycle a lock, meaning just changing the water level in the lock from "x" to "y".  Not completely filling or completely emptying it.

 

The terms "full" and "empty" in this context are deeply unhelpful and misleading.

 

 

[magnetman]

Obviously if there is more than one Boat in the lock then each individual Boat is using less water so sharing locks if possible is ideal. 

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Amount out the top = amount out the bottom. 

This balance is achieved only when the cycle is completed and the boat leaves the lock . Water from the canal then fills the hole in the water created by the boat.

The boat does the job of moving its own weight in water out of the lock when it enters the lock.

The boat does the job of moving its own weight in water from the canal into the lock as it leaves the lock.

But the weight of water used in the operation of the lock is always reduced by the weight of the boat .

 

.

[agg221]

51 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

if I had a two pints of beer in front of me:

1st full to brim with beer

Second full but with half a pint of ice cubes in,

 

I’d go for the first pint, it has more beer…simples 😃

the ice cubes have displaced 50% of the water

OK, so imagine (if you can bring yourself to do this!) that you are only going to drink -half- a pint of beer, but that someone has put a pint glass in front of you and it is full to the brim. So you drink it down to the half pint line and that is your half pint.

 

Now imagine that you decide you are going to have another half, and someone puts another pint glass in front of you and again it is full to the brim, but this time it also has ice cubes in it. So you drink it down to the half pint line, leaving the ice cubes behind. In both cases, you have drunk half a pint of beer out of a pint glass. In both cases the level went from full to the half pint line, but in one case there was less beer to start with and finish with than in the other, but you don't care because you had the half pint you wanted in both cases, and the levels went from full to half full just the same.

 

Alec