|
Post by kris on Dec 2, 2016 15:58:05 GMT
I hope your right, I knew something was coming when the iwa was showing intetest in the "problems with wide beams" I agree from reading your site it's worrying how much influence these groups seem to be having on policy. The issue of access to the whole system needs highlighting. The argument that widebeams use more water seems to be very spurious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 16:02:20 GMT
I hope your right, I knew something was coming when the iwa was showing intetest in the "problems with wide beams" I agree from reading your site it's worrying how much influence these groups seem to be having on policy. The issue of access to the whole system needs highlighting. The argument that widebeams use more water seems to be very spurious. The comment on widebeams using "more water" seems to be the best they can come up with, it's laughable, (In comparison to the damage done to lock gates by narrowboats only opening one.)
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 2, 2016 16:06:40 GMT
I hope your right, I knew something was coming when the iwa was showing intetest in the "problems with wide beams" I agree from reading your site it's worrying how much influence these groups seem to be having on policy. The issue of access to the whole system needs highlighting. The argument that widebeams use more water seems to be very spurious. The comment on widebeams using "more water" seems to be the best they can come up with, it's laughable, (In comparison to the damage done to lock gates by narrowboats only opening one.) It is also fallacious as the amount of water consumed is indirectly proportional to the tonnage in the lock ...... Oh dear, have I just shot myself in the foot ? That means yoghurt pots are probably the worst !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 2, 2016 16:07:54 GMT
Exactly, the argument about using more water is rubbish. A narrow boat in a wide lock on its own uses more water.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 2, 2016 16:09:16 GMT
The comment on widebeams using "more water" seems to be the best they can come up with, it's laughable, (In comparison to the damage done to lock gates by narrowboats only opening one.) It is also fallacious as the amount of water consumed is indirectly proportional to the tonnage in the lock ...... Oh dear, have I just shot myself in the foot ? Β That means yoghurt pots are probably the worst ! i agree with John, yogurt pots should pay more. Just because we all have to look at themπ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 16:10:49 GMT
The comment on widebeams using "more water" seems to be the best they can come up with, it's laughable, (In comparison to the damage done to lock gates by narrowboats only opening one.) It is also fallacious as the amount of water consumed is indirectly proportional to the tonnage in the lock ...... Exactly. Like I said, some on these groups ain't the brightest, hence CRT picking them. (I've always put the tittle tattle around this down to small willy syndrome).
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 2, 2016 16:13:04 GMT
It is also fallacious as the amount of water consumed is indirectly proportional to the tonnage in the lock ...... Oh dear, have I just shot myself in the foot ? That means yoghurt pots are probably the worst ! i agree with John, yogurt pots should pay more. Just because we all have to look at themπ
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Dec 2, 2016 16:42:24 GMT
it will be a double whammy for me if they only allow one discount as well. At the moment I get prompt payment and historic boat discounts. My boat is 14ft wide as well so I'll be the maximum on that increase as well. It might well price me off the water to be honest if my liscence more than doubled in one go. It won't double just because your a widebeam, the Trust realise that this would not be acceptable. There are enough widebeams on the system now to warrant a meeting between them and the Trust before anything is decided upon. This is just Matthew Symonds looking to secure further need for his job, and using Mike Annan to help him along. This is definitely not something that can be brought in short term, or willy nilly. The disturbing fact for me, is the way these groups are being used to form objectives and goals. Some of the members are not the brightest of sparks. I think you are right Steve a meeting is in order I have seen no mention of this issue in any of the mags [IWA RBOA or canalworld] its like its going to be a done deal in secret sneaky very sneaky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 16:53:00 GMT
a lock uses the same amount of water regardless of what vessel is passing through it (assuming the vessel is floating and has not been craned in)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 17:28:35 GMT
a lock uses the same amount of water regardless of what vessel is passing through it (assuming the vessel is floating and has not been craned in) My 27 ton boat displaces more water than an 18 ton one. So I use less water.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 2, 2016 17:29:15 GMT
a lock uses the same amount of water regardless of what vessel is passing through it (assuming the vessel is floating and has not been craned in) Not quite right. anything vessel in the lock will be displacing an amount of water equal to it's displacement. If you think of it as a set of scales. The weight in the lock will always be X tons which will be comprised of water alone if the lock has no boat in it. If there is a boat in the lock the weight in the lock will still be X tons which is comprised of X tons of water minus the weight (displacement) of the boat. The greater the displacement of the vessel or vessels in the lock the less will be the proportion of the weight comprised of water. A light vessel with a small displacement will therefore use more water to get to the X tons total
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 2, 2016 17:33:06 GMT
A light vessel with a small displacement will therefore use more water to get to the X tons total thats how I understand it as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 17:42:09 GMT
Hmm.
But it makes no difference if the boat goes into the lock via open gates and exits the lock at the other end via open gates. The vessel is simply floating on the water. The fact it displaces water out of the lock when it enters is cancelled out by the extra water used to Lower or raise the lock level during the passage. As I said this assumes the boat is floating at all times and has entered the lock normally ie not been craned.
Archimedes got into the bath from being in the air (craned in).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 17:45:14 GMT
The logical extension of larger boats using less water is that there would come a point where a boat completely filling a lock would use no water at all. This is clearly not possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 17:47:44 GMT
Hmm. But it makes no difference if the boat goes into the lock via open gates and exits the lock at the other end via open gates. The vessel is simply floating on the water. The fact it displaces water out of the lock when it enters is cancelled out by the extra water used to Lower or raise the lock level during the passage. As I said this assumes the boat is floating at all times and has entered the lock normally ie not been craned. Archimedes got into the bath from being in the air (craned in). I knew you would come up with that reasoning π, but it's not gonna wash. When entering the lock, the water will be forced out behind the boat.
|
|