Franglais:
I imagine her parents had and have her best interests close to them, and will try to do nothing against her interests.
.
That’s a 45 gone!
.
Edit to add
16 is young it’s true. Only one European country recruits child soldiers…
I imagine Michael Jackson’s father only had his best interests at heart too or any other of the hundreds of child prodigy’s whose lives have been ruined through parents living their lives through them.
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
I imagine her parents had and have her best interests close to them, and will try to do nothing against her interests.
.
That’s a 45 gone!
.
Edit to add
16 is young it’s true. Only one European country recruits child soldiers…I imagine Michael Jackson’s father only had his best interests at heart too or any other of the hundreds of child prodigy’s whose lives have been ruined through parents living their lives through them.
Of course we hear most about the dodgy ones.
All the cases where it works out well will pass by without comment.
.
Do we comment that much about Judy Murray or Richard Williams?
They coached their kids from a very young age.
Has Greta has been pushed as much as Jackson or those tennis offspring?
This has gone WAY off topic, so it heading off to Bully’s.
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
I imagine her parents had and have her best interests close to them, and will try to do nothing against her interests.
.
That’s a 45 gone!
.
Edit to add
16 is young it’s true. Only one European country recruits child soldiers…I imagine Michael Jackson’s father only had his best interests at heart too or any other of the hundreds of child prodigy’s whose lives have been ruined through parents living their lives through them.
Of course we hear most about the dodgy ones.
All the cases where it works out well will pass by without comment.
.
Do we comment that much about Judy Murray or Richard Williams?
They coached their kids from a very young age.
Has Greta has been pushed as much as Jackson or those tennis offspring?
Yes there are also plenty of good cases my point being tho that just because someone is your parent it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are acting in your best interests
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
I imagine her parents had and have her best interests close to them, and will try to do nothing against her interests.
.
That’s a 45 gone!
.
Edit to add
16 is young it’s true. Only one European country recruits child soldiers…I imagine Michael Jackson’s father only had his best interests at heart too or any other of the hundreds of child prodigy’s whose lives have been ruined through parents living their lives through them.
Of course we hear most about the dodgy ones.
All the cases where it works out well will pass by without comment.
.
Do we comment that much about Judy Murray or Richard Williams?
They coached their kids from a very young age.
Has Greta has been pushed as much as Jackson or those tennis offspring?Yes there are also plenty of good cases my point being tho that just because someone is your parent it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are acting in your best interests
OK.
I’ll bet the vast majority “believe” they are acting for the best, in all things, and especially concerning their kids.
As in all things, those stood further away will often have a different perspective, you’re right there.
Carryfast:
Trickydick:
Carryfast:
Trickydick:
LPG powered boats, thats going to end wellDo you own or use a boat?
No worse than petrol and MTB’s and rescue launches loaded to within an inch of their lives with the stuff to run multiple aero engines weren’t exactly blowing themselves out of the water.Nor any less safe than Diesel fuelled E Boats in that regard.
As I thought you know sfa about boats.
Exactly which part have I got wrong or missed.
It really takes a special type of stupid to be using white diesel instead of LPG or red diesel fuelled generator charging and electric propulsion.
Yes there are obviously some supply logistics to sort out in the case of the former.But probably still better than what the industry will be left with in the case of a strict white diesel only regime for propulsion purposes.
So as I predicted not a boat owner then and just making up what you know nowt about?
Trickydick:
So as I predicted not a boat owner then and just making up what you know nowt about?
No answer to the question which part have I got wrong.
You do know that it’s possible to have plenty of experience and connections with the boating/yachting scene from river to offshore sail and power boats through family/friends.Without needing/wanting to,or being able to afford to,actually ‘own’ a boat.
Which makes any difference,to the idea that electric propulsion with red diesel charging,or possibly LPG instead of Diesel,is arguably better than using and paying for white diesel for river/canal/offshore boating,how.
I know a little about boats, but very little about narrow boats.
I do know that many of them dont move huge distances annually, and when the do move, they go relatively slowly, and require only modest horsepower to propel them along the waterways. I cannot Imagine that the cost of fuel for these vessels is a huge factor. (I have a wee launch with a 6hp Petter fitted, which will work all day on less than ten litres) .
The older narrow boats fitted with slow speed heavy diesels would surely seldom have had more than 40hp, they had a huge flywheel and only fired at every telegraph pole!! There are some excellent videos somewhere of boat owners starting their engines (particularly "KELVIN " diesels).
The KELVIN “K” series of the period produced 22hp per cylinder, and was a modular engine, available as a 1/2/3/4/6 cylinder unit. It was a diesel engine, but it started on petrol. Yes, petrol. They had normal diesel injection equipment fitted, but also had a Magneto, sparking plugs and a rudimentary carburettor. This permitted hand starting from cold.
They had no pressure lubrication system in the sump, and the valve gear was lubricated by oil dripping from a wick, the other end of which was in a small oil reservoir.
Many of those made are still running, seventy years on.
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 where any aroma is not obvious to the occupants. If there is a sufficient build up, and a source of ignition becomes available ( usually a spark from the brushes when the starter is energised) it’s the end of life as you knew it!!!
That’s a canny rant I reckon. Hope that helps to get the topic back on message. 
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.
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 vesselSo 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.
I have seldom seen a “mist” being emitted from an injector pipe. A drip or squirt being more common. I will concede that atomized diesel is more flammable than in pure liquid form, but doubt if it is, even then, as flammable as petroleum vapour. Also, it only remains atomized for a short time, and does not accumulate in that form. Petrol and LPG vapour, if they are leaking into a confined and poorly ventilated space will accumulate and blow the vessel to pieces if ignited.
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 vesselSo 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 ?.
Your answer here is a completely irrelevant Carryfastism designed to muddy the waters, so I’m not biting. 
Carryfast:
While the fine mist created by a high pressure diesel fuel line leak for example is just as flammable as petrol vapour …
Now this bit isn’t just random Carryfastism, it’s simply… very improbable.
It’s elementary to most my dear Carryfast, but it seems that you need another basic lesson (stress on the word BASIC 
) on the nature of flammable liquids, so here goes…
A ( = any) flammable liquid will only produce an ignitable vapour when it is at a temperature that’s higher than its flashpoint.
Once this happens, we next need to rely on there being a sufficient amount of flammable vapour to form an ignitable mixture with the oxygen in the surrounding air, PLUS a sufficiently hot heat source to ignite the mixture. If you can achieve all three requirements at the same time, only then will you have a fire/explosion.
Turning now to the scenario you described, the difficulty for your theory comes when we consider that the temperature of the surrounding air is rather insufficient to get the leaking diesel to evaporate. The leaked diesel would in all reasonable likelihood simply condense to form a non-ignitable puddle on the floor, which might make your poorly researched theory rather soggy!! 
Diesel fuel needs > +65 degrees C to get it to start to evaporate.
Over to you and Mr Google.
Old John:
I know a little about boats, but very little about narrow boats.I do know that many of them dont move huge distances annually, and when the do move, they go relatively slowly, and require only modest horsepower to propel them along the waterways. I cannot Imagine that the cost of fuel for these vessels is a huge factor.
But the point is that why should I have to pay road fuel duty on diesel which I only use to provide heating and lighting? If it’s fair that folk who live on boats should pay road tax on domestic energy use, then it’s only fair that folk who live in houses see their energy bills rise by a similar amount.
Harry Monk:
Old John:
I know a little about boats, but very little about narrow boats.I do know that many of them dont move huge distances annually, and when the do move, they go relatively slowly, and require only modest horsepower to propel them along the waterways. I cannot Imagine that the cost of fuel for these vessels is a huge factor.
But the point is that why should I have to pay road fuel duty on diesel which I only use to provide heating and lighting? If it’s fair that folk who live on boats should pay road tax on domestic energy use, then it’s only fair that folk who live in houses see their energy bills rise by a similar amount.
As I said, Harry, I know very little about narrow boats.
I suppose I thought you could simply burn domestic kerosene to provide heat( although i thought you told us you burned coal in a stove. ) I also imagined that when you were on a long term berth that there woukd be an electrical connection available.
So, not having a go, just talking out of my fundament perhaps.
Old habits die hard!!!
Old John:
As I said, Harry, I know very little about narrow boats.
I suppose I thought you could simply burn domestic kerosene to provide heat( although i thought you told us you burned coal in a stove. ) I also imagined that when you were on a long term berth that there woukd be an electrical connection available.
So, not having a go, just talking out of my fundament perhaps.
Old habits die hard!!!
I have a multifuel stove which provides heat in the Winter, but I need to run the engine to provide hot water for dishwashing, showers etc and also to keep the batteries charged, it’s a bit like a truck I suppose, where you can watch TV and keep the interior lights on for so long but eventually you need to start the engine to recharge the batteries.
If you are moored in a marina there is inevitably an electrical hook-up but if you are either out cruising or on a farmer’s field mooring you are off-grid and reliant on your engine for all of your energy supplies. I generally run my engine (a BMC 1.5 diesel) for a couple of hours a day and it uses just under a litre an hour.
I didn’t take your comment as a dig btw so don’t be afraid to ask if there’s anything else I can explain, all boaters love talking about their boats and boating in general.
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 vesselSo 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.
dieseldave:
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 vesselSo 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 ?.
Your answer here is a completely irrelevant Carryfastism designed to muddy the waters, so I’m not biting.
Carryfast:
While the fine mist created by a high pressure diesel fuel line leak for example is just as flammable as petrol vapour …Now this bit isn’t just random Carryfastism, it’s simply… very improbable.
It’s elementary to most my dear Carryfast, but it seems that you need another basic lesson (stress on the word BASIC
A ( = any) flammable liquid will only produce an ignitable vapour when it is at a temperature that’s higher than its flashpoint.
Once this happens, we next need to rely on there being a sufficient amount of flammable vapour to form an ignitable mixture with the oxygen in the surrounding air, PLUS a sufficiently hot heat source to ignite the mixture. If you can achieve all three requirements at the same time, only then will you have a fire/explosion.
Turning now to the scenario you described, the difficulty for your theory comes when we consider that the temperature of the surrounding air is rather insufficient to get the leaking diesel to evaporate. The leaked diesel would in all reasonable likelihood simply condense to form a non-ignitable puddle on the floor, which might make your poorly researched theory rather soggy!!
Over to you and Mr Google.
Whatever you do don’t go looking for a job in the merchant navy as an engineer because you’ll fail the fire fighting course. 
maritime-executive.com/blog/ … ever-merry
As for MTB’s I can actually state that the film The Ship That Died of Shame was actually based on some ( maybe a lot of ) truth seemingly known among the boating scene around Teddington.Which probably explains why the US and Brit navy didn’t like these things potentially getting into the wrong hands after the war.What would I know at the time.
Carryfast:
dieseldave:
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 vesselSo 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 ?.
Your answer here is a completely irrelevant Carryfastism designed to muddy the waters, so I’m not biting.
Carryfast:
While the fine mist created by a high pressure diesel fuel line leak for example is just as flammable as petrol vapour …Now this bit isn’t just random Carryfastism, it’s simply… very improbable.
It’s elementary to most my dear Carryfast, but it seems that you need another basic lesson (stress on the word BASIC
A ( = any) flammable liquid will only produce an ignitable vapour when it is at a temperature that’s higher than its flashpoint.
Once this happens, we next need to rely on there being a sufficient amount of flammable vapour to form an ignitable mixture with the oxygen in the surrounding air, PLUS a sufficiently hot heat source to ignite the mixture. If you can achieve all three requirements at the same time, only then will you have a fire/explosion.
Turning now to the scenario you described, the difficulty for your theory comes when we consider that the temperature of the surrounding air is rather insufficient to get the leaking diesel to evaporate. The leaked diesel would in all reasonable likelihood simply condense to form a non-ignitable puddle on the floor, which might make your poorly researched theory rather soggy!!
Over to you and Mr Google.
Whatever you do don’t go looking for a job in the merchant navy as an engineer because you’ll fail the fire fighting course.
Never having served in the Merchant Navy and also not being an engineer, I can’t comment on Merchant Navy engineering.
Carryfast:
Engine Room Fires Are Never Merry
I’m quite sure that the info shown in the film is all perfectly true, but…
What possible connection is that to the actual topic in question, unless you’re saying that the environment in the engine room on a narrow boat is the same as that shown in the film?? 
There’s truth and relevance to be considered here… what the film portrays is true and in its correct context, it’s the relevance to the environment in a narrowboat engine room that I challenge.
As usual, you’ve ‘found’ something that you think fits your purpose, but only serves to highlight the (lack of) quality in your posts.
Have another word with Mr Google.
Carryfast:
Edit to add
Have you actually read the document you’ve linked?
Have you actually read my post made at 6:59 above?
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.
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.
dieseldave:
I’m quite sure that the info shown in the film is all perfectly true, but…What possible connection is that to the actual topic in question, unless you’re saying that the environment in the engine room on a narrow boat is the same as that shown in the film??
There’s truth and relevance to be considered here… what the film portrays is true and in its correct context, it’s the relevance to the environment in a narrowboat engine room that I challenge.
As usual, you’ve ‘found’ something that you think fits your purpose, but only serves to highlight the (lack of) quality in your posts.
What film ?.Like the following post the articles just convey the dangers of diesel fuel mists caused by leakage under pressure which changes the rules regarding flash points and ignition .
As shown over the years the dangers of petrol v diesel regards boat fires probably aren’t massively different.Although it’s obvious that petrol could potentially create a pool of flammable vapour in the event of a leak.In view of which maybe there’s a case for allowing red diesel to be used in boats to prevent any incentive to use petroleum type fuels creating an arguably excessive fire hazard.Although the idea of electric propulsion for river/canal type use makes it a moot point in that case anyway.
