|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 6, 2019 7:52:36 GMT
A dry exhaust on a narrow boat means a skin tank. Why do you think there is no skin tank? I bet there is one. Eta it is perfectly normal on a narrow boat to have a skin tank and a heat exchanger cooled engine. I take it back. Mechanic is round now and I do have a skin tank (as well as the heat exchanger). Now I know! He's pointed it out to me. If your engine really is heat exchanger cooled through a skin tank, then it will not cope with the sort of periods of high rpm/high power operation that could be asked of it in the lower Trent. It may, however, only appear to be cooled with a bastardization of two distinctly different systems simply because it's equipped with a combined manifold/header tank in the form of a heat exchanger body casting with the raw water (canal/river/seawater) connections blanked off and the heat exchanger tube stack removed. If this is so, and if the skin tank covers an adequate area of shell plating, then all will be well, if not and it is a combination of what should and must be two completely different methods of cooling an engine, then it will overheat when you work it harder on the river, and the extent of the potential problem needs determining before you embark on the last leg of your journey to Leeds. Would it be possible for you to post some photo's of the engine, from suitable angles, showing all the water piping on the engine itself, both ends of the skin tank connecting pipes/hoses, and the front of the engine showing all ancillaries, including the water pump - or pumps - there will be two pumps if it is heat exchanger cooled, but only one if it's a proper skin tank cooled set-up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 9:24:56 GMT
I take it back. Mechanic is round now and I do have a skin tank (as well as the heat exchanger). Now I know! He's pointed it out to me. If your engine really is heat exchanger cooled through a skin tank, then it will not cope with the sort of periods of high rpm/high power operation that could be asked of it in the lower Trent. It may, however, only appear to be cooled with a bastardization of two distinctly different systems simply because it's equipped with a combined manifold/header tank in the form of a heat exchanger body casting with the raw water (canal/river/seawater) connections blanked off and the heat exchanger tube stack removed. If this is so, and if the skin tank covers an adequate area of shell plating, then all will be well, if not and it is a combination of what should and must be two completely different methods of cooling an engine, then it will overheat when you work it harder on the river, and the extent of the potential problem needs determining before you embark on the last leg of your journey to Leeds. Would it be possible for you to post some photo's of the engine, from suitable angles, showing all the water piping on the engine itself, both ends of the skin tank connecting pipes/hoses, and the front of the engine showing all ancillaries, including the water pump - or pumps - there will be two pumps if it is heat exchanger cooled, but only one if it's a proper skin tank cooled set-up. Will do! I'll get some photos tonight. Mechanic who serviced the engine yesterday couldn't see anything problematic and said it was in good shape. The skin tank is quite a sizeable thing, but anyway, photos this evening/tomorrow morning (depending on when I get home and how light it is) and you'll have a better idea than me.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 6, 2019 10:29:17 GMT
Not me, god forbid ! It's a RIVER ! Shake in your wellies Fearless Dogless! (haha! geddit, Welly?). We are going to nip down the Terrible Trent in our little tub as far as Keadby. Have it down as around July 2023. On the Trent with a 10 horse one pot thumper. You're a braver man than I, Gungadin. It doesn't aegre well I tell you. Have you visited the canals of 'dam yet?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2019 11:28:57 GMT
I don’t expect the core navigation channel markings have changed much if at all . . . You mean there ARE core navigation channel markings? The Honourable Mrs Justice Asplin claimed that it was unrealistic to think that marking out main navigable channels would ever be undertaken in the first place, and that keeping track of any changes would be impractical. “ He says that . . . one could mark the main navigable channel with buoys to which Mr Stoner responds that marking with buoys would be wholly impractical and that as the deepest part of a river changes from time to time, if Mr Moore is right, one would have to apply for a map and carry out surveys of all inland waterways at regular intervals and re-position buoys with regularity.” . . . “ If Mr Moore were right, it would be necessary to conduct frequent surveys of all inland waterways for which CRT is responsible in order to obtain up to date details of the position of the deepest channel and to record the same . . .” Perhaps the 15 versions of the Trent charts are phoney? (Not that the channels need have changed much if at all, as you and Tony suggest, but of course, in some rivers they have, and surveys WERE carried out by CaRT to locate and mark same).
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 6, 2019 15:00:05 GMT
I don’t expect the core navigation channel markings have changed much if at all . . . You mean there ARE core navigation channel markings? The Honourable Mrs Justice Asplin claimed that it was unrealistic to think that marking out main navigable channels would ever be undertaken in the first place, and that keeping track of any changes would be impractical. “ He says that . . . one could mark the main navigable channel with buoys to which Mr Stoner responds that marking with buoys would be wholly impractical and that as the deepest part of a river changes from time to time, if Mr Moore is right, one would have to apply for a map and carry out surveys of all inland waterways at regular intervals and re-position buoys with regularity.” . . . “ If Mr Moore were right, it would be necessary to conduct frequent surveys of all inland waterways for which CRT is responsible in order to obtain up to date details of the position of the deepest channel and to record the same . . .” Perhaps the 15 versions of the Trent charts are phoney? (Not that the channels need have changed much if at all, as you and Tony suggest, but of course, in some rivers they have, and surveys WERE carried out by CaRT to locate and mark same). C&RT's neighbouring Navigation Authority, responsible for the lower reaches of the river Trent below Gainsborough, take a somewhat different view from that of the good Judge and C&RT's lawyers ! In the two weeks from the 3rd to the 17th of September 2018 Associated British Ports surveyed the Trent taking on average around 15 depth soundings across width of the river at intervals of something in the region of every 70 - 80 yards for every one of the 17 and a bit miles from Keadby Bridge to Gainsborough Bridge. Every one of the millions of soundings taken during the survey, reduced to a Chart Datum related back to Ordnance Datum Newlyn, are entered on charts published by ABP and available free of charge via the ABP Humber website. Similar, but far more frequent, surveys are also routinely undertaken by ABP on the commercially used rivers Humber and Ouse up as far as Goole Bridge where their neighbours, the UK's joke of all time Navigation Authority, then become responsible for the remainder of the river Ouse up to the limit of navigation. The Judges remarks with regard to the necessity of carrying out - " frequent surveys of all inland waterways for which CRT is responsible" - leave me almost at a loss for words. What in God's name does she, or the assemblage of clowns who mismanage C&RT for the greater bad, think the duties and functions of a Navigation Authority are or should include ?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 6, 2019 15:26:15 GMT
Shake in your wellies Fearless Dogless! (haha! geddit, Welly?). We are going to nip down the Terrible Trent in our little tub as far as Keadby. Have it down as around July 2023. On the Trent with a 10 horse one pot thumper. You're a braver man than I, Gungadin. It doesn't aegre well I tell you. Have you visited the canals of 'dam yet? I watched Jono's videos and the Trent does not scare me one bit. We will be going downhill. Of course, I will swot up on it all beforehand. It will be a Great Adventure. I could be dead before that, though.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 6, 2019 15:33:07 GMT
Shake in your wellies Fearless Dogless! (haha! geddit, Welly?). We are going to nip down the Terrible Trent in our little tub as far as Keadby. Have it down as around July 2023. On the Trent with a 10 horse one pot thumper. You're a braver man than I, Gungadin. It doesn't aegre well I tell you. Have you visited the canals of 'dam yet? been down it in Shapfell ....with the mighty 2 cyl Vetus, thumping out its maximum 7.5 Hp
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 6, 2019 15:34:53 GMT
Well we've got 2.5 hp more, and if I put Pirkko on the bank with a rope round her neck that'll give 1 more
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 6, 2019 15:36:31 GMT
timing is everything
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2019 17:34:01 GMT
The Judges remarks with regard to the necessity of carrying out - " frequent surveys of all inland waterways for which CRT is responsible" - leave me almost at a loss for words. What in God's name does she, or the assemblage of clowns who mismanage C&RT for the greater bad, think the duties and functions of a Navigation Authority are or should include ? In all fairness Tony, the maintenance department of CaRT DO survey and mark out the main navigable channels of larger rivers where these may have moved, as well as keeping tabs on bed profiles of all the waterways in their control in order to plan dredging works (that they are not funded to do the necessary work revealed is not their fault). For the Ravenscroft case I provided a comprehensive set of work notices and reports from BW/CaRT to illustrate exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 7, 2019 0:27:45 GMT
The Judges remarks with regard to the necessity of carrying out - " frequent surveys of all inland waterways for which CRT is responsible" - leave me almost at a loss for words. What in God's name does she, or the assemblage of clowns who mismanage C&RT for the greater bad, think the duties and functions of a Navigation Authority are or should include ? In all fairness Tony, the maintenance department of CaRT DO survey and mark out the main navigable channels of larger rivers where these may have moved, as well as keeping tabs on bed profiles of all the waterways in their control in order to plan dredging works (that they are not funded to do the necessary work revealed is not their fault). For the Ravenscroft case I provided a comprehensive set of work notices and reports from BW/CaRT to illustrate exactly that. Just my point, Nigel, . . under the instructions of the Parry regime C&RT's lawyers persuade a Court as to the impracticality, if not impossibility, of doing something which in reality they ARE doing, and the success of that argument leads to the Court finding wholly for C&RT. A Navigation Authority worthy of it's calling, and job description, would choose instead to direct the budget that C&RT allocate to malicious litigation to following up on and complimenting the findings and activities of their hydrology department !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 7, 2019 8:30:07 GMT
On the Trent with a 10 horse one pot thumper. You're a braver man than I, Gungadin. It doesn't aegre well I tell you. Have you visited the canals of 'dam yet? I watched Jono's videos and the Trent does not scare me one bit. We will be going downhill. Of course, I will swot up on it all beforehand. It will be a Great Adventure. I could be dead before that, though. You're right not to be 'scared' of the Trent, or any other river, but don't make the mistake of underestimating it or it's ability to turn you and bite you very hard if you do ! I've no idea of who 'Jono' is, nor of the content of any of his videos, but if they portray the Trent as a placid, hazard free, doddle of a river to bumble about on then he's doing no-one any favours. One prolific poster on CWDF delights in displaying her photo's of the lower reaches of the Trent, Ouse and Humber in their most benign of moods, and is habitually dismissive of any cautionary advice. Don't be taken in by any of the irresponsible claptrap that accompanies the photo's, . . . she, and others, mistake the helpings of good fortune and dumb luck which have so far prevented any harm coming to them for the rewards of what they see as their extensive know-how and vast experience.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 7, 2019 8:36:16 GMT
Jono has Trent videos 47, 53, 54, 55 - I haven't watched those yet, but I have seen these. And it would appear you're talking about 'NaughtyCal' who dashes about in a fast speedboat; no, I always do my own research, and am cautious. Jono's videos are a good start to the Trent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 9:23:41 GMT
I take it back. Mechanic is round now and I do have a skin tank (as well as the heat exchanger). Now I know! He's pointed it out to me. If your engine really is heat exchanger cooled through a skin tank, then it will not cope with the sort of periods of high rpm/high power operation that could be asked of it in the lower Trent. It may, however, only appear to be cooled with a bastardization of two distinctly different systems simply because it's equipped with a combined manifold/header tank in the form of a heat exchanger body casting with the raw water (canal/river/seawater) connections blanked off and the heat exchanger tube stack removed. If this is so, and if the skin tank covers an adequate area of shell plating, then all will be well, if not and it is a combination of what should and must be two completely different methods of cooling an engine, then it will overheat when you work it harder on the river, and the extent of the potential problem needs determining before you embark on the last leg of your journey to Leeds. Would it be possible for you to post some photo's of the engine, from suitable angles, showing all the water piping on the engine itself, both ends of the skin tank connecting pipes/hoses, and the front of the engine showing all ancillaries, including the water pump - or pumps - there will be two pumps if it is heat exchanger cooled, but only one if it's a proper skin tank cooled set-up. Here's a bunch of images. I missed a few of the front of the engine, will get them tonight/tomorrow morning! Yes, engine compartment needs a bit of a clean but I'm going to wait until the crap weather passes.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 7, 2019 9:37:58 GMT
I’m not familiar with this engine but at first glance it looks like a bog standard skin tank cooling system. To my eye the area of the tank looks small but I suppose the engine is relatively low powered (compared to our 43bhp). Could you measure the heigh and length of the tank (and thus calculate the area)? This will give us a good idea whether the cooling is adequate for sustained high power use, as the ability to dissipate heat is proportional to the area of the tank.
the other unknown is whether the tank has internal baffles, not immediately obvious that it does. Baffles should be in there to force the hot coolant to flow over the entire area of the tank, rather than just making a bee line between inlet and outlet - which severely reduces the effective area of the tank. Normally there would be some signs of longitudinal welding where the baffles are attached inside.
|
|