Poor Harry and other boat owners

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Edit to add

hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1107.pdf

Have you actually read the document you’ve linked?

Have you actually read my post made at 6:59 above?

:bulb: Remembering that we’re speaking of the environment of the engine room (including all conditions such as fuel system pressures etc) of a narrowboat it looks like you’ve provided support for what I said. Thanks for that. :smiley:

As usual, your googling and posting of off-topic and irrelevant ‘facts’ has been spotted for what it is, …an unsuccessful attempt to muddy the waters.

As I read it it’s just rightly saying that a fine fuel mist ain’t the same thing as a pool of diesel on the floor or a leaking unpressurised pipe regardless of whether it’s a ship engine room or a river boat. :confused:

Anyway I’ve admitted that it’s a pointless comparison and maybe diesel is arguably safer than petrol.But I’m probably not the only one who’s thinking along the lines of going from diesel to LPG to avoid the costs of white diesel.In which case the obvious solution would be to allow the use of red diesel in boats on grounds of safety.Problem solved. :bulb:

Carryfast:

Old John:

Carryfast:

Old John:
Two very dangerous fuels to carry in a boat are petrol and lpg.
The vapour from both is heavier than air, and always settles in the lowest part of a vessel

So how do you explain the fact that MTB’S/PT boats/RAF rescue launches were no less safe to use in service than diesel fuelled E boats and not exploding en mass at their moorings ?.While the fine mist created by a high pressure diesel fuel line leak for example is just as flammable as petrol vapour hence the massive risk of engine room fires first and foremost in all types regardless of fuelling.Although electric and stand alone outside diesel generator charging is obviously safer than diesel or petrol if you don’t need the power/range as in the case of river/canal use.

Where is the evidence that the petrol powered vessels you describe were as safe as their diesel engined counterparts? I imagine that the builders and operators of the petrol powered boats had to be extremely careful about ventilation and leaks.

If it’s as bad as you say they’d obviously have taken the German route instead of using petrol fuelled aero engines.You’re making all the hysterical claims concerning the non issue of petrol fuelled boats being worse than diesels so why not you to provide the evidence to back it.

Hysterical claims? Hark at her. Do you ever actually read any of the guff that you post on here?
If I knew how to do it I could post lots of links to marine accidents involving petrol or lpg fuelled explosion on boats. Don’t think I can find any relating to diesel vapour though. There’s a wee challenge for you boy.
I can’t believe I’ve actually risen to you and answered your vacuous comments.
Seems that you, Pike, are not the only Stupid Boy on TN.

Old John:
If I knew how to do it I could post lots of links to marine accidents involving petrol or lpg fuelled explosion on boats. Don’t think I can find any relating to diesel vapour though.

That might be a good start.Which might or might not help some of your theory. :wink:

naval-history.net/WW2British … oastal.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat#Losses

As for diesel vapour that’s not the same thing as a fine mist caused by a leak under pressure.

Anyway I’ve sort of agreed with you and admitted that diesel is arguably safer at the end of the day so you can stop moaning now.

So what do the government do.They disincentivise the use of diesel.

Old John:

Carryfast:

Old John:

Carryfast:

Old John:
Two very dangerous fuels to carry in a boat are petrol and lpg.
The vapour from both is heavier than air, and always settles in the lowest part of a vessel

So how do you explain the fact that MTB’S/PT boats/RAF rescue launches were no less safe to use in service than diesel fuelled E boats and not exploding en mass at their moorings ?.While the fine mist created by a high pressure diesel fuel line leak for example is just as flammable as petrol vapour hence the massive risk of engine room fires first and foremost in all types regardless of fuelling.Although electric and stand alone outside diesel generator charging is obviously safer than diesel or petrol if you don’t need the power/range as in the case of river/canal use.

Where is the evidence that the petrol powered vessels you describe were as safe as their diesel engined counterparts? I imagine that the builders and operators of the petrol powered boats had to be extremely careful about ventilation and leaks.

If it’s as bad as you say they’d obviously have taken the German route instead of using petrol fuelled aero engines.You’re making all the hysterical claims concerning the non issue of petrol fuelled boats being worse than diesels so why not you to provide the evidence to back it.

Hysterical claims? Hark at her. Do you ever actually read any of the guff that you post on here?
If I knew how to do it I could post lots of links to marine accidents involving petrol or lpg fuelled explosion on boats. Don’t think I can find any relating to diesel vapour though. There’s a wee challenge for you boy.
I can’t believe I’ve actually risen to you and answered your vacuous comments.
Seems that you, Pike, are not the only Stupid Boy on TN.

Welcome to Bully’s!
The Hotel California of TNUK.
.
I thought about calling it the Bermuda Triangle of sensible (originally sensible) posts, but we all know the truth about the Bermuda Triangle don’t we…
:wink:

Cant we just call it DERV again? :smiley:

Wheel Nut:
Cant we just call it DERV again? :smiley:

No chance.Now also known as DERC and DEB.Diesel Engine River Craft and Diesel Engine Boats. :smiling_imp:

Wheel Nut:
Cant we just call it DERV again? :smiley:

I guess we could Malc, but some folks call Carryfast by a different name too. :grimacing: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Edit to add

hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1107.pdf

Have you actually read the document you’ve linked?

Have you actually read my post made at 6:59 above?

:bulb: Remembering that we’re speaking of the environment of the engine room (including all conditions such as fuel system pressures etc) of a narrowboat it looks like you’ve provided support for what I said. Thanks for that. :smiley:

As usual, your googling and posting of off-topic and irrelevant ‘facts’ has been spotted for what it is, …an unsuccessful attempt to muddy the waters.

Carryfast:
As I read it it’s just rightly saying that a fine fuel mist ain’t the same thing as a pool of diesel on the floor or a leaking unpressurised pipe regardless of whether it’s a ship engine room or a river boat. :confused:

I’d agree with that, because it’s essentially what I wrote in my first post. :smiley:
:bulb: That’s why I struggled to see the relevance of mentioning any other kind of vessel/engine room when the topic is about narrowboats.

In the environment of a narrowboat engine room, there’s hardly likely to be much pressure in the ‘feed’ side of the system. If that leaked, it would end up as a pool on the floor.

On the other hand, the ‘pressure’ side of the system eg: from the pump to the injectors is under a much higher pressure. A leak in this part of the system could easily result in a fine mist spray. However, three things must all be present at the same time in order to have a fire/explosion in the likely circumstances to be found in the engine room of a narrowboat. I’d still say that this is hardly likely in a narrowboat engine room as I said in my first post.

1.) atomised diesel at a temperature in excess of its flashpoint (> 65 degrees C)
2.) a fuel/air mix within the right proportions (1% - 5% for diesel)
3.) a sufficiently hot heat source in excess of the AIT figure for diesel ( >230 degrees C or thereabouts)

Carryfast:
Anyway I’ve admitted that it’s a pointless comparison and maybe diesel is arguably safer than petrol.But I’m probably not the only one who’s thinking along the lines of going from diesel to LPG to avoid the costs of white diesel.In which case the obvious solution would be to allow the use of red diesel in boats on grounds of safety.Problem solved. :bulb:

I agree with your conclusion about red diesel on the same grounds that you’ve mentioned.

Now for your mention of LPG. (I imagine you’re speaking of Propane??)

I’d suggest that an LPG leak on either side of the system is potentially very dangerous, so (personally) I’d not consider using LPG.
LPG is usually at a pressure of around 8bar (120psi) in carriage and storage, but then there’s normally a pressure reducer in the system that takes the gas to the appliance that actually uses/burns it.

Typical flammable range for LPG is in the order of 2% - 10%, which IMHO would easily be possible in confines of the engine room of a narrowboat, even if the leak were from the lower pressure side of the system.

I’d discount the use of petrol too for the reason that any petrol leak will form an ignitable mixture (1% - 7%) with air if the temperature is higher than minus 40 degrees C, so in the real world, petrol is always dangerous and potentially lethal within the confines of a narrowboat engine room.

The surprising thing about petrol is the highish AIT figure of 380ish degrees C, but this does vary according to formulation.

Just for completeness, the vapours of evaporated Petrol and Diesel as well as leaked (reverted) LPG at zero pressure are all heavier than air.

Its this heavier than air thing that can be the cause of problems ,maybe a tad of topic but if there is a fridge on the boat it can leak heavier than air dangers as well. I did yachtmaster many years ago and a yachts engine bay wont be much different from a narrow boat as far as I can tell. You want a gas alarm(carbon monoxide) of some sort mounted as low down as possible .the air should be changed with the bilge pump regularly. I never owned a yacht but did plenty of crewing some boats left for a week would really stink inside. I told some people to bring in buckets of fresh air to sweeten the place.

dieseldave:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Edit to add

hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1107.pdf

Have you actually read the document you’ve linked?

Have you actually read my post made at 6:59 above?

:bulb: Remembering that we’re speaking of the environment of the engine room (including all conditions such as fuel system pressures etc) of a narrowboat it looks like you’ve provided support for what I said. Thanks for that. :smiley:

As usual, your googling and posting of off-topic and irrelevant ‘facts’ has been spotted for what it is, …an unsuccessful attempt to muddy the waters.

Carryfast:
As I read it it’s just rightly saying that a fine fuel mist ain’t the same thing as a pool of diesel on the floor or a leaking unpressurised pipe regardless of whether it’s a ship engine room or a river boat. :confused:

I’d agree with that, because it’s essentially what I wrote in my first post. :smiley:
:bulb: That’s why I struggled to see the relevance of mentioning any other kind of vessel/engine room when the topic is about narrowboats.

In the environment of a narrowboat engine room, there’s hardly likely to be much pressure in the ‘feed’ side of the system. If that leaked, it would end up as a pool on the floor.

On the other hand, the ‘pressure’ side of the system eg: from the pump to the injectors is under a much higher pressure. A leak in this part of the system could easily result in a fine mist spray. However, three things must all be present at the same time in order to have a fire/explosion in the likely circumstances to be found in the engine room of a narrowboat. I’d still say that this is hardly likely in a narrowboat engine room as I said in my first post.

1.) atomised diesel at a temperature in excess of its flashpoint (> 65 degrees C)
2.) a fuel/air mix within the right proportions (1% - 5% for diesel)
3.) a sufficiently hot heat source in excess of the AIT figure for diesel ( >230 degrees C or thereabouts)

Carryfast:
Anyway I’ve admitted that it’s a pointless comparison and maybe diesel is arguably safer than petrol.But I’m probably not the only one who’s thinking along the lines of going from diesel to LPG to avoid the costs of white diesel.In which case the obvious solution would be to allow the use of red diesel in boats on grounds of safety.Problem solved. :bulb:

I agree with your conclusion about red diesel on the same grounds that you’ve mentioned.

Now for your mention of LPG. (I imagine you’re speaking of Propane??)

I’d suggest that an LPG leak on either side of the system is potentially very dangerous, so (personally) I’d not consider using LPG.
LPG is usually at a pressure of around 8bar (120psi) in carriage and storage, but then there’s normally a pressure reducer in the system that takes the gas to the appliance that actually uses/burns it.

Typical flammable range for LPG is in the order of 2% - 10%, which IMHO would easily be possible in confines of the engine room of a narrowboat, even if the leak were from the lower pressure side of the system.

I’d discount the use of petrol too for the reason that any petrol leak will form an ignitable mixture (1% - 7%) with air if the temperature is higher than minus 40 degrees C, so in the real world, petrol is always dangerous and potentially lethal within the confines of a narrowboat engine room.

The surprising thing about petrol is the highish AIT figure of 380ish degrees C, but this does vary according to formulation.

Just for completeness, the vapours of evaporated Petrol and Diesel as well as leaked (reverted) LPG at zero pressure are all heavier than air.

It was the references to the No’s 90,92 Portland Harbour,

501 Lands End,

8 Hong Kong,

28 wherever,

255,438,444,459,461,462,465,466,776,789,791,798 Ostende harbour all on the same date, :open_mouth:

686 Lerwick

133 W Scotland

169 Gibraltar harbour

242 wherever

265,287 Freetown same date

301 Freetown

387 Beirut

Which helped to change my mind. :wink:

naval-history.net/WW2British … oastal.htm

Dieseldave you have my utmost admiration. You’re sat so close to the red button! I’m not sure that with so much power at my fingertips I wouldn’t act. :smiley:

I’m worried for the Titanic now, Geoff is going to be on the salvage crew.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Titanic , if it really is the Titanic is doing ok there is still water in the Captains bathtub.

alamcculloch:
The Titanic , if it really is the Titanic is doing ok there is still water in the Captains bathtub.

He’s really ■■■■■■ off he asked for fresh water from the taps in his bath not sea water.

Some say he knew nothing about the fire which was lit in the coal bunkers before they left which they later flooded to blow the side out of the boat.But some say he did hear something about an Atlantic rendevous with another ship for some obscure reason being talked about but ignored it as just a silly rumour.

Talking of the Titanic go back to steam there’s no ‘road’ fuel tax on coal. :smiley:

youtube.com/watch?v=WnsvxhxAqx4

youtube.com/watch?v=LknQO7A4QIU

The use of petrol engines versus diesel engines during the second world war was a matter of expediency. Because both sides needed a very large increase in equipment production, they used whatever they already had, and increased production as much and as fast as possible. If you have a reliable petrol engine, available in numbers, you are going to use it, even if it would be marginally safer to use a diesel engine, which you need to develop and build a production line for. There was also the logistics of fuel supply. Petrol was refined in quantity. To start a separate diesel refining line, and the separate logistic train to get it to the users, would have taken to much resource from the immediate issue at hand, I.e. in the first years of the war, keeping a deterrent against the German navy operational, to deny the German navy control of the English channel and the North Sea, simply to keep Britain in the fight.

Once hostilities ceased, and development continued after the war, tanks and ships soon became diesel fueled, although not simply because of safety reasons.

If you compare statistics for boat fires, you’ll find that petrol engined pleasure boats regularly catch fire, or even explode (usually when the engine is started without purging the engine bay), and the number of times Diesel engned boats do the same, can be counted on one hand.

LPG is dangerous. Anybody arguing the use of LPG or Propane or Butane over diesel, as a propulsion fuel, shows a total lack of understanding of the subject, and can be ignored.

the nodding donkey:
The use of petrol engines versus diesel engines during the second world war was a matter of expediency. Because both sides needed a very large increase in equipment production, they used whatever they already had, and increased production as much and as fast as possible. If you have a reliable petrol engine, available in numbers, you are going to use it, even if it would be marginally safer to use a diesel engine, which you need to develop and build a production line for. There was also the logistics of fuel supply. Petrol was refined in quantity. To start a separate diesel refining line, and the separate logistic train to get it to the users, would have taken to much resource from the immediate issue at hand, I.e. in the first years of the war, keeping a deterrent against the German navy operational, to deny the German navy control of the English channel and the North Sea, simply to keep Britain in the fight.

Once hostilities ceased, and development continued after the war, tanks and ships soon became diesel fueled, although not simply because of safety reasons.

If you compare statistics for boat fires, you’ll find that petrol engined pleasure boats regularly catch fire, or even explode (usually when the engine is started without purging the engine bay), and the number of times Diesel engned boats do the same, can be counted on one hand.

LPG is dangerous. Anybody arguing the use of LPG or Propane or Butane over diesel, as a propulsion fuel, shows a total lack of understanding of the subject, and can be ignored.

I’d suggest that if the choice is between white diesel v all the other options white diesel will be at the bottom of many boaters’ list on the same grounds of ‘expediency’.

The LPG option obviously becomes less of a safety hazard and easier to handle in the case of downsizing to outboard level rather than inboard for the average budget motor boater.

youtube.com/watch?v=8rhgBCwmuXU

Leaving the larger offshore motor yachts and their running costs being affordable for the Abramoviches and Branson’s of this world.

Going electric with red diesel fuelled generator charging is probably also a no brainer in the case of river/canal use.Possibly also even going back to the coal fired steam option for some including the charcater that adds to a boat.

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
The use of petrol engines versus diesel engines during the second world war was a matter of expediency. Because both sides needed a very large increase in equipment production, they used whatever they already had, and increased production as much and as fast as possible. If you have a reliable petrol engine, available in numbers, you are going to use it, even if it would be marginally safer to use a diesel engine, which you need to develop and build a production line for. There was also the logistics of fuel supply. Petrol was refined in quantity. To start a separate diesel refining line, and the separate logistic train to get it to the users, would have taken to much resource from the immediate issue at hand, I.e. in the first years of the war, keeping a deterrent against the German navy operational, to deny the German navy control of the English channel and the North Sea, simply to keep Britain in the fight.

Once hostilities ceased, and development continued after the war, tanks and ships soon became diesel fueled, although not simply because of safety reasons.

If you compare statistics for boat fires, you’ll find that petrol engined pleasure boats regularly catch fire, or even explode (usually when the engine is started without purging the engine bay), and the number of times Diesel engned boats do the same, can be counted on one hand.

LPG is dangerous. Anybody arguing the use of LPG or Propane or Butane over diesel, as a propulsion fuel, shows a total lack of understanding of the subject, and can be ignored.

I’d suggest that if the choice is between white diesel v all the other options white diesel will be at the bottom of many boaters’ list on the same grounds of ‘expediency’.

The LPG option obviously becomes less of a safety hazard and easier to handle in the case of downsizing to outboard level rather than inboard for the average budget motor boater.

youtube.com/watch?v=8rhgBCwmuXU

Leaving the larger offshore motor yachts and their running costs being affordable for the Abramoviches and Branson’s of this world.

Going electric with red diesel fuelled generator charging is probably also a no brainer in the case of river/canal use.Possibly also even going back to the coal fired steam option for some including the charcater that adds to a boat.

A boat with character? Suitable for placid lakes and canals?
Punt.
At least it’s summat like that.

Franglais:
A boat with character? Suitable for placid lakes and canals?
Punt.
At least it’s summat like that.

A coal fired steam powered punt with character brilliant idea someone should invent it.No road fuel tax to pay either.Also sure that kerosene isn’t subject to road fuel duty either. :wink:

youtube.com/watch?v=iwyHNcPL2RM

When I was doing the sailing instructor bit we had a ski boat that was fuelled by LPG . The lump was a 6 litre Chrysler ,to pull skiers up you nee a lot of power for fast acceleration. When it was out of service the boss hired in a petrol boat and it used so much fuel that it wasn’t economical to run it at all.

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
The use of petrol engines versus diesel engines during the second world war was a matter of expediency. Because both sides needed a very large increase in equipment production, they used whatever they already had, and increased production as much and as fast as possible. If you have a reliable petrol engine, available in numbers, you are going to use it, even if it would be marginally safer to use a diesel engine, which you need to develop and build a production line for. There was also the logistics of fuel supply. Petrol was refined in quantity. To start a separate diesel refining line, and the separate logistic train to get it to the users, would have taken to much resource from the immediate issue at hand, I.e. in the first years of the war, keeping a deterrent against the German navy operational, to deny the German navy control of the English channel and the North Sea, simply to keep Britain in the fight.

Once hostilities ceased, and development continued after the war, tanks and ships soon became diesel fueled, although not simply because of safety reasons.

If you compare statistics for boat fires, you’ll find that petrol engined pleasure boats regularly catch fire, or even explode (usually when the engine is started without purging the engine bay), and the number of times Diesel engned boats do the same, can be counted on one hand.

LPG is dangerous. Anybody arguing the use of LPG or Propane or Butane over diesel, as a propulsion fuel, shows a total lack of understanding of the subject, and can be ignored.

I’d suggest that if the choice is between white diesel v all the other options white diesel will be at the bottom of many boaters’ list on the same grounds of ‘expediency’.

The LPG option obviously becomes less of a safety hazard and easier to handle in the case of downsizing to outboard level rather than inboard for the average budget motor boater.

youtube.com/watch?v=8rhgBCwmuXU

Leaving the larger offshore motor yachts and their running costs being affordable for the Abramoviches and Branson’s of this world.

Going electric with red diesel fuelled generator charging is probably also a no brainer in the case of river/canal use.Possibly also even going back to the coal fired steam option for some including the charcater that adds to a boat.

You have just shown that you have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. As usual, you take a key word you think you recognise, google it, and like a pitbull, clamp your jaws tight, right or wrong…

The choice of engine is almost entirely down to what it’s supposed to do, and not the preferred choice of fuel. I’ll let you google that, and embarrass yourself.

You obviously don’t understand the difference between inboard and outboard engines, and where, and how, their fuel supply is kept.

As for you suggesting that it would be a good idea to use a diesel generator to create electricity, to run an electric motor, to push the boat…
What do you think is pushing the boat now?

Stick to politics. At least you have a slight upper hand, because we either don’t know, or don’t care what you’re o about.