The message
from Adrian Brentnall adrian-the papers and the
contains these words:

Not knocking the fellow - but, like so many of these programmes,
there's a strong 'directorial' influence - and the entertainment part
always seems to win over the informative.... - or perhaps I'm getting
old and cynical g

That sums up just about everything wrong with modern telly.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:47:05 +0100 someone who may be Adrian
Brentnall adrian-the papers and the wrote
this:-

Bit like that lovely water-wheel he built - which appeared to be used
to run only the lighting in the house...

What is wrong with that? Lighting is a significant part of
electrical demand in many buildings.

I would like to ask him why he went for a water wheel though. A
turbine is more efficient, though it doesn't look as pretty.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

HI David

On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:39:18 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:47:05 +0100 someone who may be Adrian
Brentnall adrian-the papers and the wrote
this:-

Bit like that lovely water-wheel he built - which appeared to be used
to run only the lighting in the house...

What is wrong with that? Lighting is a significant part of
electrical demand in many buildings.

Suppose so...... - just feels like doing half a job - but I suppose
that an installation capable of supplying 'serious' power might have
required more energy than they had available...

Don't remember what the power out was for their waterwheel / inverter
system - somewhere in the 'hundreds of watts' range, do you think ?

Hate to think what kind of an installation I'd need to get my (little)
glassworking kiln running 'off grid' - it's rated at about 1kw - and
idea what that equates to in terms of head of water etc ..?


I would like to ask him why he went for a water wheel though. A
turbine is more efficient, though it doesn't look as pretty.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. ISTR that, in the
program where they finally connected the water wheel to their genny,
one of them said 'well, we could have used a turbine but they all
you'd see would be a little black box' - or words to that effect.

There used to be a lovely wheel at an old tin-mine / ore crushing
plant down in East Cornwall - can't remember the name of the place now
- but it was a big blighter - probably 15ft diameter.

Actually - found the place - it's Morwellham Quay - pic of the
water-wheel here

http://www.morwellham-quay.co.uk/ima...village500.jpg

Fairly slow moving - but with a definite I've started now I'll
finish feel to it when it was in motion. Sadly, not coupled up to
anything at the moment - seems like a waste g

Looks as if our move to Ireland may actually be going to happen at
last - so on the lookout for a suitable property down in the
South-West. Thinking seriously about heat-pumps for space heating -
seems that there are grants available for such things over there...
watch this space ! g

Adrian
Suffolk UK



======return email munged=================
take out the papers and the trash to reply

The message
from Adrian Brentnall adrian-the papers and the
contains these words:

HI David

On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:39:18 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

I would like to ask him why he went for a water wheel though. A
turbine is more efficient, though it doesn't look as pretty.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. ISTR that, in the
program where they finally connected the water wheel to their genny,
one of them said 'well, we could have used a turbine but they all
you'd see would be a little black box' - or words to that effect.

I wondered why make a waterwheel out of plywood, unless they don't
intend it to last any longer than it takes to make a TV programme about
making a plywood waterwheel.

Janet

Simple really. Though there are national laws, each company can make
their own rules.

Would you like to post a link to the legislation that allows them to do
this?

Christian.

"Mark" wrote in message
...

nightjar .uk.com nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...


http://www.thameswater.co.uk/UK/regi...FAQ_000051.jsp

Washing flags is not explicitly banned, so you wouldn't be prosecuted.
It's a question of conscience.

Being true for Thames Water doesn't make it true for other water
companies, though.

The relevant Act only gives the Water Suppliers the power to prohibit the
use of hose pipes for watering of domestic gardens and for the washing of
private cars. They do not have the powers to impose greater restrictions,
until they get

Until they are granted a drought order.

Which was the implication of the rest of my post.

Colin Bignell

In article , The Invalid
wrote:

On 4 May 2006 09:40:57 +0200, Chris Bacon
wrote:

The Invalid wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Water companies do not make the law.

Water Companies can make their own rules for usage.

There doesn't need to be any law imposed

Please explain.

Simple really. Though there are national laws, each company can make
their own rules.

They can make _exemptions_ such as drip irrigation systems if they are
so inclined but they cartainly can't make additional rules over and
above the powers specifically granted to them by the Water Industry
Act. It's just too bad if the water compnaies wanted to ban pressure
washers for instance. They can't do it under the current law

As has been said, they need to apply for a drought order to extend the
restrictions but even then they will only be allowed to restrict the
uses specified in the drought order. They can't make up any additional
rules until they go the whole hog and sapply for an Emergency Drought
Order which involves standpipes, rota cuts and all sorts of nasties
that the water companies will want to steer well clear of. They are
already being bombarded with lawsuits from businesses which are
claiming that their liveliehood is being ruined by unjustifiable
hosepipe bans.

Would you like to post a link to the legislation that allows them to do
this?

Only if you post a link to the legislation that says they cant.

Water Industry Act 1991 (c.56)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...10056_en_8.htm

37-38 Places a duty on the water company to supply water.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...n_8.htm#mdiv52

52 Places a duty on the water company to supply enough water for domestic
use.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...10056_en_9.htm

76(1) Enables them to break this duty for the purposes of a hosepipe ban,
but only for car washing and watering gardens.

Your turn.

Christian.

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Adrian Brentnall adrian-the papers and the
contains these words:

Not knocking the fellow - but, like so many of these programmes,
there's a strong 'directorial' influence - and the entertainment part
always seems to win over the informative.

That sums up just about everything wrong with modern telly.

Quite right. Leave your video recorder on at night over the weekends to
capture the OU output these days. They are getting swamped by "What the
Romans did for us" sort of dumb.

I quite like those sorts of things, maybe as infil they are OK but
there does seem to be a move to undo any "pushing the envelope"
intentions that were the formats of the stuff from yesteryear.

Or am I just missing the bald, long haired men, with wide spotty ties
in huge shirt collars?

In article , The Invalid
wrote:

On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:29:13 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Would you like to post a link to the legislation that allows them to do
this?

Only if you post a link to the legislation that says they cant.

Water Industry Act 1991 (c.56)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...10056_en_8.htm

37-38 Places a duty on the water company to supply water.
Not relevant to my point

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...n_8.htm#mdiv52

52 Places a duty on the water company to supply enough water for domestic
use.
Not relevant to my point

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991...10056_en_9.htm

76(1) Enables them to break this duty for the purposes of a hosepipe ban,
but only for car washing and watering gardens.

Your turn.

You just answered your own question

I think your original assertion was that the water companies can make
up the rules as they go along - which is wrong. If you can't
substantiate it, don't waste people's time.

The Invalid wrote:
Stan The Man wrote:
I think your original assertion was that the water companies can make
up the rules as they go along - which is wrong. If you can't
substantiate it, don't waste people's time.

No it wasn't my original assertion at all. If you cant understand what
was written then don't waste peoples time by replying to something
that is beyond you

But you did say that, in:

Message-ID:

That's when I stopped bothering about your posts.

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , The Invalid
wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:34:41 +0000, Stan The Man
wrote:


I think your original assertion was that the water companies can make
up the rules as they go along - which is wrong. If you can't
substantiate it, don't waste people's time.

No it wasn't my original assertion at all.

Here is the full text of your contribution on May 3: "Water Companies
can make their own rules for usage. There doesn't need to be any law
imposed."

So, why do you deny something which is on record?

If you cant understand what was written then don't waste peoples
time by replying to something that is beyond you

But it's obvious that I know considerably more about the subject than
you do... You are just a Smart Alec and a troll.

As a private company a water company can impose whatever regulations
they see fit, subject to their statutory obligations.

No it can't. No water company has any statutory obligation to supply
water to an outside tap and yet they have no powers to prevent any
householder from leaving an outside tap running 24 hours a day if
anyone chose to do that. The _only_ usage restrictions currently
available to the water suppliers are the use of hosepipes to water
gardens and wash vehicles. They cannot make up any of their own rules
about what other uses to prohibit. Try to understand and move on.

The Water companies are not private. AFAIK they are all quoted stock.
Any company can and does make rules which may or may not have the force of
Law behind them.
So what's the problem?

In article , The Invalid
wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:34:41 +0000, Stan The Man
wrote:


I think your original assertion was that the water companies can make
up the rules as they go along - which is wrong. If you can't
substantiate it, don't waste people's time.

No it wasn't my original assertion at all.

Here is the full text of your contribution on May 3: "Water Companies
can make their own rules for usage. There doesn't need to be any law
imposed."

So, why do you deny something which is on record?

If you cant understand what was written then don't waste peoples
time by replying to something that is beyond you

But it's obvious that I know considerably more about the subject than
you do... You are just a Smart Alec and a troll.

As a private company a water company can impose whatever regulations
they see fit, subject to their statutory obligations.

No it can't. No water company has any statutory obligation to supply
water to an outside tap and yet they have no powers to prevent any
householder from leaving an outside tap running 24 hours a day if
anyone chose to do that. The _only_ usage restrictions currently
available to the water suppliers are the use of hosepipes to water
gardens and wash vehicles. They cannot make up any of their own rules
about what other uses to prohibit. Try to understand and move on.

In article , W.Yorkshire\
wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , The Invalid
wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:34:41 +0000, Stan The Man
wrote:


I think your original assertion was that the water companies can make
up the rules as they go along - which is wrong. If you can't
substantiate it, don't waste people's time.

No it wasn't my original assertion at all.

Here is the full text of your contribution on May 3: "Water Companies
can make their own rules for usage. There doesn't need to be any law
imposed."

So, why do you deny something which is on record?

If you cant understand what was written then don't waste peoples
time by replying to something that is beyond you

But it's obvious that I know considerably more about the subject than
you do... You are just a Smart Alec and a troll.

As a private company a water company can impose whatever regulations
they see fit, subject to their statutory obligations.

No it can't. No water company has any statutory obligation to supply
water to an outside tap and yet they have no powers to prevent any
householder from leaving an outside tap running 24 hours a day if
anyone chose to do that. The _only_ usage restrictions currently
available to the water suppliers are the use of hosepipes to water
gardens and wash vehicles. They cannot make up any of their own rules
about what other uses to prohibit. Try to understand and move on.

The Water companies are not private. AFAIK they are all quoted stock.
Any company can and does make rules which may or may not have the force of
Law behind them.
So what's the problem?

The difference is the level of regulation and control by the Government
because water is a) an essential resource and b) not owned by the water
companies. Consequently, Defra set all the rules about how it should be
treated and delivered and the water companies set none.

As a private company a water company can impose whatever regulations
they see fit, subject to their statutory obligations.

Their statutory obligations being that they can't impose whatever
regulations they see fit.

You are an arse and I claim my 5 pounds.

Plonk.

CHristian.