"martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's the
idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.

Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?

Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
to hold it will cost?

Waste of time and money, I call it.

--
Brian
"Reality rarely lives up to TV, usually because reality has a smaller budget
and the opportunities for retakes are minimal."

On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's the
idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.

Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?

Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
to hold it will cost?

Waste of time and money, I call it.

You don't fancy the Good Life, then?

MM

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?

Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
to hold it will cost?

Waste of time and money, I call it.

You don't fancy the Good Life, then?

I have the good life.

:-)

--
Brian
"I'd like to be a bit taller and thinner and have more hair and a bigger
willy. But by and large, I am content."

On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

~
~"martin" wrote in message
.. .
~ On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM wrote:
~
~On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
~
~ Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
~metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's the
~idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.
~
~ Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?
~
~Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
~to hold it will cost?
~
~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

jane, who had a lot of fun wiring up her lottie shed to a water butt
the other week. Course it's hardly rained since... typical!

"jane" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:
~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

Except it's taking something that isn't yours.

--
Brian
"Anyway, if you have been, thanks for listening."

In article ,
"Brian Watson" writes:
| "jane" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
| shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
| from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
| purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
| making its way to the sea?
|
| If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
| then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!
|
| Except it's taking something that isn't yours.

You do that whenever you draw breath.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Brian Watson" writes:
"jane" wrote in message
...

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to
a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water
directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case
gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of
petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

Except it's taking something that isn't yours.

You do that whenever you draw breath.

And in any case, as we have seen, he's entitled to 20m^3 a day.
Anybody taking bets on how long he keeps it up?

--
Mike.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:57:46 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Brian Watson" writes:
"jane" wrote in message
...

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to
a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water
directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case
gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of
petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

Except it's taking something that isn't yours.

You do that whenever you draw breath.

And in any case, as we have seen, he's entitled to 20m^3 a day.
Anybody taking bets on how long he keeps it up?

Hang about! I've yet to buy a stirrup pump! As for Watson saying
'Except it's taking something that isn't yours", how prissy can one
be? We have already established that the EA allows it up to 20 cubic
meters a day!

MM

On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:18:30 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

~
~"martin" wrote in message
. ..
~ On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM wrote:
~
~On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
~
~ Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
~metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's the
~idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.
~
~ Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?
~
~Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
~to hold it will cost?
~
~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

jane, who had a lot of fun wiring up her lottie shed to a water butt
the other week. Course it's hardly rained since... typical!

Ah, Jane, butts! I am thinking of getting one and piping it into the
downpipe from the guttering around my house. Apparently B&Q do a
contraption to redirect the rainwater into the butt which one can fit
into the downpipe somehow. What sort of a job is it? I am a very
effective DIY person!

MM

MM wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:18:30 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

~
~"martin" wrote in message
.. .
~ On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM
wrote: ~
~On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
~
~ Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
~metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's
the ~idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.
~
~ Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?
~
~Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the
container ~to hold it will cost?
~
~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

jane, who had a lot of fun wiring up her lottie shed to a water butt
the other week. Course it's hardly rained since... typical!

Ah, Jane, butts! I am thinking of getting one and piping it into the
downpipe from the guttering around my house. Apparently B&Q do a
contraption to redirect the rainwater into the butt which one can fit
into the downpipe somehow. What sort of a job is it? I am a very
effective DIY person!

MM

It is very simple indeed. I got one supplied with my water butt. All you
have to do IIRC is cut through the downpipe and put the diverter in place
and realign the downpipe sections.
However I have been pondering this. If one needs the water from the butt,
to water your garden during dry spells, how will the butt get filled in the
first place if the garden is dry because of a dry spell??
Here in my old cottage in the fens, I have a bell shaped water collector
underground.
It was made to catch the rainwater off the roof. I suppose if you have an
older house in the fenland area, you will have such a thing somewhere near
the house also. You could always fit a pump on the top, one of those with a
handle you have to pump with. Be a nice feature aswell as environmentally
friendly.

--�
purebred poultry
www.geocities.com/fenlandfowl

"pammyT" wrote in message
...
MM wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:18:30 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

~
~"martin" wrote in message
.. .
~ On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM
wrote: ~
~On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
~
~ Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
~metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's
the ~idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.
~
~ Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?
~
~Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the
container ~to hold it will cost?
~
~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~

Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
making its way to the sea?

If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!

jane, who had a lot of fun wiring up her lottie shed to a water butt
the other week. Course it's hardly rained since... typical!

Ah, Jane, butts! I am thinking of getting one and piping it into the
downpipe from the guttering around my house. Apparently B&Q do a
contraption to redirect the rainwater into the butt which one can fit
into the downpipe somehow. What sort of a job is it? I am a very
effective DIY person!

MM

It is very simple indeed. I got one supplied with my water butt. All you
have to do IIRC is cut through the downpipe and put the diverter in place
and realign the downpipe sections.
However I have been pondering this. If one needs the water from the butt,
to water your garden during dry spells, how will the butt get filled in
the
first place if the garden is dry because of a dry spell??

When it rains, it waters the garden *and* fills the butt. Then when it's a
dry spell, you've got a butt full of water.

If it's a long dry spell, you're toast. And so are your plants.

Steve

shazzbat wrote:
"pammyT" wrote in message
[...]
However I have been pondering this. If one needs the water from
the
butt, to water your garden during dry spells, how will the butt
get
filled in the first place if the garden is dry because of a dry
spell??

When it rains, it waters the garden *and* fills the butt. Then when
it's a dry spell, you've got a butt full of water.

If it's a long dry spell, you're toast. And so are your plants.

I'm going to keep on saying this till I'm green in the face. Most
plants in most situations in most parts of the British Isles in most
years (maybe decades) do not need watering once they're established.
You plant them properly in the first place in properly prepared soil,
mulch as necessary, and just let them grow.

--
Mike.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:10:47 +0100, MM wrote:

~On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:18:30 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:
~
~On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:10:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:
~
~~
~~"martin" wrote in message
...
~~ On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:02:36 +0100, MM wrote:
~~
~~On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:09:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
~~
~~ Of course, you'd get about 150 cubic
~~metres of Anglian water for that kind of money instead, but it's the
~~idea of getting something for nothing that appeals.
~~
~~ Have you worked out how much 20 cubic metres of water weighs?
~~
~~Or how much the petrol will cost to get it home? Or how much the container
~~to hold it will cost?
~~
~~Waste of time and money, I call it.
~~
~
~Yes, but in a country which is heading for hosepipe bans due to a
~shortage of clean water this summer, surely getting water directly
~from a dyke will be much greener, as it's not been expensively
~purified, saves using drinking water and is in any case gradually
~making its way to the sea?
~
~If it's not far away, and therefore not much in the way of petrol,
~then surely it's a good idea? Especially if it's fun!
~
~jane, who had a lot of fun wiring up her lottie shed to a water butt
~the other week. Course it's hardly rained since... typical!
~
~Ah, Jane, butts! I am thinking of getting one and piping it into the
~downpipe from the guttering around my house. Apparently B&Q do a
~contraption to redirect the rainwater into the butt which one can fit
~into the downpipe somehow. What sort of a job is it? I am a very
~effective DIY person!

I found it fairly easy - the only downside to the diverter I got was
that it was one that requires only a very slight downward gradient to
the butt. If no gradient, the butt wouldn't fill, and if too large the
excess came out the butt lid. Took mm precision and a roll of duck
tape. Which I can recommend for anything involving guttering...

I've also got two types of diverter - you'll need fixed pitch font
here! One's

| |
| |
|\ |
| \ ___ _
| \ ___ _
| \|
| |

where the sloping bit can be set upright by a lever to let water go
into the drains. You attach a hose to the outpipe, and it will work
over quite a distance but does not automagically redivert to the drain
if the butt's full

The other's more

| |
| |
| |
|| ||___ _
|| | ___ _
\| |/
| |

so once the butt is full, the water backs up the pipe and any more
water is forced over the inner ring and back down the drain. As I said
above, the outflow pipe has to be very precisely positioned for this
to work! I have two butts wired to this one (they're space savers, ie
narrower and so don't block the path at the front of the house as a
full diameter one would. More expensive per gallon than bog standard
butts and you need two for the same volume of water, but they look
quite good. I've got a window box balanced across the lids of mine).
erm url...
http://www.gonegardening.com/xq/ASP/...op/product.htm
I didn't get mine from them - this was just a google to illustrate.

Both of these diverters are round cross-section - I've seen square
ones but have no idea how you make the seal properly for normal
circular drainpipes.

Good luck






--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

In article ,
(jane) wrote:

I had one of these:-




| |
| |
| |
|| ||___ _
|| | ___ _
\| |/
| |

As the previous poster mentioned, they have to be set up with
great precision. To adjust it you should move the diverter up and down on the
main pipe. You can't easily adjust the position of the butt
relative to the diverter, since its full of water and therefore
weighs some tonnes.
My roof is overhung by trees and I found the diverter blocked
with leaves and other debris about every six weeks depending on season.
I abandoned it in the end.

regards

John McMillan