DaveS

Well, Colin (Happy Jax II) seems to find his useful, and I guess I'll find out in due course if it works for me. In any case, it will look nice on the boat My plan, as with Colin, is to set it to HW at Yarmouth, and just add the correction for wherever on the Broads I happen to be. Dave

There you go , I just happened to mention to Mrs S that I'd like a brass tide-clock for the boat, and she said "why not have that for your birthday" I have seen one that I rather like said I, "why don't you go ahead and order it" she said. Ok said I, and no sooner was it said it was done Dave

That's interesting info Mike, thanks. Here, the engine concerned is a Mecruiser 1.7 turbo diesel, which I understand is basically an Isuzu 'lump'. According to the workshop manual, which we now have, the fuel flow rate is 1.47L per minute, which from memory, I think was at 300rpm. Now if this is the case, then if the return pipe comes close to the bottom of the tank, and is directed downwards (which it is), then it will almost certainly to stir up any sediment laying on the bottom of the tank, which will then get sucked into the fuel system. I suspect that this is what has happened here, as prior to making the mod to re-route the fuel return pipe, from going back to the filter, and take it to the tank, the engine was running fine. Since the mod, the engine is now unable to reach anywhere near 3000rpm, and starts hoding back under load. We are going to bend the bottom of the return pipe, so that the stream of returned fuel is directed across the fuel tank, and not at the bottom. Replace the fuel filter element, as we suspect this might now be restricting the flow, due to sediment, and finallly, install a water seperator in the fuel line, having been advised that this is really a 'must' with diesel engines. Hopefully, when the work is down, the engine will again perform as it did. Dave

Good to meet you and Heather too If all goes to plan, then we should be at the WRC for the weekend, so yes please to the ballast, if its no hassle to bring it. Dave

My Chernobyl comment was 'tongue in cheek', and I am well aware that Western European safety standards and technology are in totally different league, to the likes of Chernobyl. I am also good friends with a senior engineer at the Sizewell plant, but he will not talk about any aspect if its considered 'strictly in-house' information. Am also aware that Nuclear Engery is here to stay (its got a 'half life' of thousands of years ), and that fossil fuels will eventually run out, while wind turbines will only meet a fraction of our needs. However, that still doesn't alter the fact that nuclear fuel (even when expended) is deadly to man and beast, if it gets loose. What's left over has to be transported by rail in special flasks to places like Sellafield, and it remains so deadly, that the only thing we can do with it, is to bury deep underground in bedrock. So the term 'clean energy' is a bit misleading. That said, we are stuck with it, and can only hope that a serious incident never happens. Dave

I don't trust the Nuclear industry any further than I could throw them. They will ony tell you what they want you to hear, especially when they want to build another Nuclear Power Station. I saw on Anglia TV a while back, that households in Leiston and other villages close to Sizewell, are issued with a supply of Potassium Iodate tablets (I think that's the correct name), to prevent radiation being taken up by the Thyroid gland, in the case of a radiation leak at the plant. With all the best safeguards in place, the risk of an unforseen accident must always be present. Remember Chernobyl!!. Dave

One very nice report Gav, and some lovely photos to go with it May the rest of the trip be just as enjoyable. Looking forward to the next chapter Dave

The frog was about 18" away from the lens, but he was 'cropped out' from a slightly wider field image. Blackbirds can be surpisingly bold/tame. A couple of years back, I used to throw bits of bread to a male blackbird most every day. As each day passed, he would venture closer, until after two weeks he would jump up onto my knee and eat the food I'd place there, and be in no hurry to jump off. Eventually taking the bread from my fingers. Dave

As I have had some involvement with this one, in that I made up the unions and adaptors for allowing the fuel return line to be fed back into the fuel tank, I have been doing some reading on the do's and don’ts, with regards this fuel return line. I have come across much contradictory advice, and am now left wondering what is best, and what isn't. 1. Majority opinion is that the fuel return line should go back to the tank. However, one supposedly "experienced" diesel engineer says that it better to return it to the filter, via a fuel cooler. This he says, is a better method in terms minimising air getting into the fuel line system, and keeping the fuel clean, as it gets filtered on its way from the tank, goes through the pump, and then back though the filter before being returned to the pump. 2. Assuming that the return line goes back to the tank, then tank and line, must be higher than the pump, so that fuel does not drain from the pump to the tank, thus allowing air into the system when the engine is not running. 3. The end of the fuel return line should be well immersed in the fuel at the tank. One proponent says that if the pipe is not immersed, then return fuel will form bubbles on top of the fuel in the tank. Now I have a problem with the 'laws of physics' on this one, as in my experience (especially as a ex scuba-diver) that air bubbles will always go up to the surface, and not downwards. Thus bubbles on the surface of the fuel, will not migrate to the bottom of the tank, where the fuel is drawn off. 4. Another “expert†stats that the fuel return line should be immersed, to prevent air creeping back into the system, if the engine isn’t run for some time. This does seem to have some logic, but then my knowledge of diesel engines is minimal. 5. Another view that contradicts the above is that the return line should have no restriction to the returned fuel. Now, my question here is, does the fact that the return line is immersed in say, a 24†depth of fuel, does this present a restriction, compared an open ended pipe? 6. Finally, given that with diesel engine fuel systems, fuel cleanliness is paramount, does that fact that the exit of fuel return line may be close to the bottom of the fuel tank, pose a fuel cleanliness issue. I say this because, for obvious reasons, the fuel outlet will not be flush with the bottom of the tank, to minimise the risk of sediment entering the fuel line. If a stream of returned fuel exits the return line, close to the bottom of the tank, this could potentially stir up any sediment lying on the bottom of the tank. Some engines apparently return fuel at a rate of Litres per minute, whereas with others, the amount is described as a ‘leakage’ quantity. So, what is right, and what isn’t, as there seems to be contradiction at every turn? Dave

Spotted this chap sitting on the side of the 'water feature' this morning Dave

Unlikely 'wanty', as I'm based at the WRC, so it will be the Waveney for me. We will be taking a cruise up your way sometime this summer, so I'll have the chance to catch some of your fish then Dave

I hope you've left a few fish in the river for me to catch I'll be up at the boat tomorrow, bring some 'tackle' with me, and fishing for the first time this season Dave

There must be something about single guys in their mid 40's I live in a close of seven detached properties, and its probably fair to say that they are priced well above the national average. Six of the properties are maintained to a high standard, along with the gardens. However, in the seventh one, lives a single guy in his mid 40's, who has lived there for many years. That paint is flaking of the garage door, the garden is like a jungle, and the driveway is in a bad way. Must be a stereotype thing. BTW, he is actually a nice guy. Dave

Very nice too Gavin Take care going over the 'Bar' on the way out of the river Dave

From Wikipedia: Tide clocks keep an approximation of the average time between high lunar tides: 12 hours 25 minutes per revolution. As the precise average time between high lunar tides is actually half of a lunar day, or 12 hours 25 minutes 14 seconds, tide clocks gain about 15 minutes per month and must be reset periodically Or, in keeping with what Strowager said: Tides are caused mainly by the moons gravitational pull on the ocean.The time it takes the moon to reappear at the same place in the sky each day is 24 hours and 50 minutes . Most areas in the world have two high tides and two low tides a day, so the tide clock has been specially designed to rotate twice each lunar day (every 12 hours and 25 minutes) giving you a quick and easy indication of high and low water. The Quartz tide clock will always stay synchronized to the moon. There are other influences on sea levels that effect exact tide times. Therefore the tide clock should only ever be used as a guide, and is not intended for navigational use The suns own gravitational pull, when lined up with the moon (full moon and new moon) creates higher and lower tides. This can alter tide times by up to an hour. Changing atmospheric pressure. Strong on-shore and off-shore winds. Changing volume of river flows. Dave

I think we all like a few 'shiny bits' onboard David, even if its only because they look nice, or 'tiddly' as they say in the Navy I keep a tin of Brasso onboard to keep the 'ship's bell' shiny. I didn't buy that one, it came with the boat I think I'll drop the hint about the tide clock Set it to Gt Yarmouth tide time, and then its just matter of applying the corrections, for wherever we happen to be on the Broads. Dave

With a birthday coming up in about three weeks time, I will no doubt be asked if there is anything that I would like as a pressy. My son just gave me a bottle of Scotch for 'fathers day', so well sorted there , don't need any new fishing gear, and have got plenty of socks Something for the boat perhaps? Having been buying a steady stream of 'bits & bobs' for the boat, since we bought it last August, she has pretty much got everything I need now. However, browsing the chandlers websites for ideas, I came across a nice little (4.5") Brass cased Tide Clock: I thought this might be a useful gadget (gimmick?) to have onboard, for planning our trips around the Broads, to run with the tide whenever practical to do so (fuel economy ), clearance under bridges (e.g. St Olaves and Beccles old road bridge)), and journeys through Yarmouth. So, do any of you guys have them, and if so, are they useful or just a gimmick?. BTW, it certainly pays to 'shop around', as my local chandlers, and chandlers in Norfolk, are asking £54 to £56 for Plastimo clock shown in the picture, whereas at TCS Chandlery, its £35 Dave

Just to close this 'open ended' thread: Decision made, and lifejacket bought I opted for the Ocean Saftey 175XS Auto (as shown earlier in this 'thread'), based on features, fit, and price. Dave

Steve at the WRC workshop, does a pretty good job Dave

Thanks Ian Dave

There is space Ian, but on either side of the fuel tank (Petrol), which then doesn't site them amidships. I could move the fuel tank further back, and put the batteries in front of it, but that means putting in a longer section of filler pipe, and extending or replacing the copper fuel line. So, a lot of messing around when a bag or two of sand to starboard would likley solve the issue. In fact these could go on the starboard side of the fuel tank. Dave

'some you win, and some you lose' Mark , but then you could be talking a load of crap As for the batteries, they are located in purpose built enclosure, beneath the wrap around seating in the cockpit, so other than move them below deck, next to the petrol tank , there's no place to move them to really. Dave

Sounds like a very pleasant way to have passed few hours The season is already 5 days old, and I haven't dangled a hook yet Dave

Thanks guys, some very useful and practical solutions I never thought of 25kg bags of sand or ballast, albeit I went to B&Q yesterday and bought a couple of bags of sharp sand for a little job in the garden. Having carried them from the car to the back garden, I should have thought they would be usefully heavy enough for ballasting the boat . Put it down to a 'senior moment' The Pig Iron ball bearings also sound like a very good option, and if you do find them, I will gratefully accept your kind offer. If not, the a bag of sand sounds like the way to go, and has been said, will mould to the shape required. Thanks again Dave

I need to add some ballast to my boat, as without anyone on board, it has a slight list to port. The reason for this slight list, is that the three batteries, the fridge (which is quite heavy), the cassette toilets holding and flush water tanks, and the double helm seat, are all located on the port side. Although the hot water tank, gas bottles, and cooker are located on the starboard side, they don't balance out the weight of the gear on the port side. The fuel tank, and 150L fresh water tank (in the bow), are both located amidships, so no problem there. My thinking is to introduce some weight (ballast) in the space beneath the salooon seating, on the starboard side. The question is what to use, to give the most weight for minimum volume? Some nice big mudweights would be good, but expensive, as would be any sizeable lump of lead. With water only weighing 10lbs per gallon, a container to provide a reasdonable amount of weight, would be quite bulky. I have thought of using some 17"x8"x4" concrete building blocks, as these are quite heavy. Any thoughts? Dave