Soldering re-chargable cells.

On 28/08/2017 01:05, T i m wrote:

Sounds like you are to me. I want a subsidy from others so I don't have to pay as much is pretty much the same as harry IMO.
The big difference is that the government wanted people to do what harry has done, they don't want you to have a boat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:01:22 +0100, "dennis@home"

Well, it might to you because you are easily confused. I'm going to take my batteries round to harry's anyway so he can charge them on his panels, as I'm already paying him. ;-)

Of course it is (to you). There is a massive difference between forcing other people to pay for something that you use AND GAIN FINANTIALLY FROM personally ... and off-setting the (in my case 'arbitrary) cost of making use of an existing recourse because of the benefits my use will bring (and many of the waterway authorities seem to agree because they do reduce the licence fee for those who don't pollute the water and air (fuels and oil in the water and fumes and noise in the air). Similarly I don't use many of the services the licence helps support, like pump-out, hard moorings, water / electric hookup or even locks for that matter (as we can portage round).
Part of the licence fee will also be used to 'clean up' the pollution made directly into the water by spilt fuel, leaking oil or underwater exhausts. I won't be doing any of that and I won't be using the waterways any differently than those who row (at the point of use etc). Many authorities do indeed treat electrically propelled boats in the same way as they might sailing or rowing craft or at least reduce the cost.
"The Authority encourages more environmentally-friendly forms of boating with reduced charges for electrically propelled motor craft."
http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/owning-a-boat/environmentally-friendly-boating

But all under false pretences and using questionable ethics.

Of course they do. We are positively encouraged to make use of the facilities open to all of us (not just those who happen to own a roof that faces in the right direction and are looking for a cash cow).
'Use it or lose it'. My licence also helps towards the upkeep of the towpaths but I haven't seen a horse drawn boat on any waterway for years and the walkers and cyclists (who create most of the wear) contribute nothing (but I'm happy to subsidise them). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/08/2017 10:41, T i m wrote:

You are gaining financially if you don't pay as much.

It does appear that way now but not when it started.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:15:14 +0100, "dennis@home"

You are talking bollox again. ;-)
Not paying as much means just that. You aren't adding anything *extra* to the pot, you just aren't taking as much as you otherwise might.

<snip> >>> The big difference is that the government wanted people to do what harry

I thought that when it started. <shrug> Anything that is fundamentally good / sound will generally stand on it's own two feet.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Generally Horses are prohibited from using most canal towpaths so using a horse drawn boat to navigate everywhere would be awkward. There are exceptions , some sections of towpaths have been incorporated into bridle paths and there are a few horse drawn tourist/ trip boats that have been granted the right permissions for use of a regular section. There are often complaints from the horsey community that this is so and they frequently wail that the Towpath was built for horses. Ignoring the fact that the horses were not being ridden and proceeded at a gentle pace operated by people who knew that for the system to work a degree of cooperation was required with each other aided by the fact that canal towpaths then were not legally accessible by the public. Now there are with all sorts of users the last thing needed is the towpaths being cut up by horses hooves from gaggles of teenage girls and their mothers pushing their way past other users.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

easy; make the towpaths only for Shires & Clydesdales.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They tended to be too big for use on most UK canals. When Horses were used as motive power they tended be something smaller both to fit under the many low bridges and pass each other on the towpaths, Mules were sometimes used instead of Horses . The bigger breeds were sometimes used on canals where barges rather than narrow boats were able to be used where things were engineered with larger proportions anyway.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:33:01 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
<snip> >They tended to be too big for use on most UK canals. When Horses were

Didn't some bridges across rivers and canals gave a gap in the middle so the horse drawn tow-rope could pass though as the horses crossed sides?
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes , some canals. Don't know of a river navigation . the Canals were smaller ones so the bridge sections which were only supported at one end need not be too large. The canal to Stratford upon Avon was one and some bridges remain though the gap has often been removed in recent decades so they can stay up. This one still has it.
http://racundra.puffinrock.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Stratford-1-17.jpg

But the gap wasn't solely for that reason, it was because there was no towpath through the bridge at all so the horse would pass by the bridge past the ends, sometimes they crossed other times they went back down to the same side. The better method for crossing from a towpath on one bank to another was to use a what is called a roving bridge where the towpath crosses the bridge and spirals back so the crossing is completed before the horse passed through the arch. some of the more elaborate ones had a seperate bridge on a bridge as seen here.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3500/3222988204_96475c7d47_b.jpg
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:00:17 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
<snip> >>Didn't some bridges across rivers and canals gave a gap in the middle

What about the River Lea (Navigation) (as opposed to the one that runs parallel to it that isn't navigable)?

Ok.

Nice pic, thanks. ;-)

Ok, makes sense.

Wow, that is cool, thanks. ;-)
I'll show the daughter that and see if she can work out what it's for.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I meant was that I did not know of any fixed split bridge on a River Navigation as opposed to a narrow canal, not that I did not know of any river navigation's of which there are quite a few. The Lea( Shouldn't it be Lee which differentiates it from the other?) is quite wide and I don't think such a construction would suit.
Some commentators mention that the Stratford was unique in having them but there is one about 15 miles away from me as I type and I'm sitting in North Devon. picture 25 on this gallery http://www.bude-canal-trust.co.uk/main-gallery/ That has been strengthened in the 130 or so years since a the canal closed but photo 9 in the same set shows recovered sections of metalwork from another bridge nearby that no longer exists.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 01:04:57 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Ok.

Yeah, I thought I read how they were spelled differently for such a reason but again, have since forgotten. ;-(
<checks> No wonder this mild dyslexic gets confused: ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Lea#Etymology

Ok. I thought I remembered seeing one but it might have just been a picture somewhere.

There is often 'the exception that breaks the rule'. ;-)

I can't see what was the gap with my eyes from that pic. ;-(

That's a neat use of it to keep the design in peoples minds (a gap in the 'table' might have kept that clearer though). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It has been Lea here all my life but there was a pre-war cast iron notice board threatening poachers with dire consequences if they dared to fish the *Lee Conservancy*:-)
--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:29:00 +0100, Tim Lamb

I remember that term but wasn't sure where it was from (era / usage).
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:05:37 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Oh, shame. ;-(

Ok.

Quite?

Ah.

Quite. Thanks (as usual) for the background. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:05:37 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

A barrister I used to work for insisted that up till the 1947 town and country planning act bridle ways were just roads along which horses had to be led by the bridle.
Also as most navigable rivers were established by act of parliament the rights granted for their towpaths were strictly for the conveyance of goods, as time went by and powered boats took over the towpaths fell into disuse and the original landowners took them back in hand, often developing them such that a continuous pathway no longer exists at all. OTOH the towpaths on canals were established as the canal was built on land acquired through an act of parliament and as the canal companies passed away and the canals were acquired by the current trusts so the towpaths became permitted footpaths and a great resource they are too.

A famous name on the bit of canal I frequent (on foot, bike and "Isabella" when she over winters).
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

As can Li, but not generally on their own simply because you have over-discharged them.

Sue, but I'll be wiring it all up so there won't be any of those. ;-)

Whilst I'm not saying there are *no* risks, I'm saying there are much fewer risks than say with Li. Like, I can't remember where I read so much advice about you *must* never leave a lead acid battery on charge unmonitored or that you can buy a fire safe / bunker for charging, transporting or storing lead acid batteries in.

I don't think I need to <weg>.

Such as? I thought I made the pros and cons pretty clear and were no-brainers for our needs?
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 28 August 2017 00:50:17 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I hope you're kidding there

of course

Each to their own.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:57:30 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Assuming you are talking about the only bit I don't have control of, eg, inside the battery itself then yes, you are right.
Outside of the battery, nope, there will be no poor connections because I will be making them.

<snip>

Well, a part of it is that of course but the underlying reason is the poor fit of anything other than Lead Acid for me and this roll.
Cons for anything other than Lead Acid (and ignoring Nicad, NiMh or anything exotic here), eg, mainly LiPo / Li-Ion.
1) Highly intermittent use (where LA can be left on trickle charge 24/7).
2) A higher chance of spontaneous combustion if overcharged or damaged.
3) Massive investment in the batteries (and Li technology is still changing fast).
4) Massive investment in the charging equipment (because) ...
5) Batteries need to be stored at a storage charge level requiring fast top-up when required at short notice.
6) Batteries need to be discharged to a storage charge level if charged and not used.
7) Batteries cannot be left unsupervised on charge.
8) Batteries ideally need to be charged, stored and transported in a fireproof enclosure.
On the pro side for Li-xx, they would be lighter (for the same kWh). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 31 August 2017 15:05:30 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

So you weren't joking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.