On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:29:40 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:10:27 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

The message
from T i m contains these words:

I've only recently parted company with the excellent Elonex keyboard
that came with my first 286 machine.

PS2 plug (some 286's did)?

No, DIN-5 but it wasn't that which killed it off. Several of the switch
units had died, and though I swapped them round for keys I never use
eventually it all got the better of me.

Aww .. it's a shame when you loose an old friend ... ;-(

T i m

Yeah, when you _loose_ an old friend;- off they gambol and run about wagging
their little tails looking at you with big eyes just begging for a stick to
be thrown .... however
I can picture the moment..Tim, standing on doorstep, gesturing outwards;
commanding the keyboard; - "Go! Make your own way in the world - You
obsolescent collation of assorted keys! I loose you!"
there again ...

LOL

to lose an old friend ... different matter... tears all round, poxy adverts
pinned to telegraph poles, notices in shops; (Some outfit on tele' claims to
insure against expenses when this happens ... "that's lucky")

Still smoking the funny stuff then Brian ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Yes, mostly, but not always an option and my point, please see
above or convenient (takes more time and if you don't want to make a
hobby of getting some sustenance ... ).

Oh, sustenance for us isn't a hobby. We want the best and aren't prepared to
accept anything less.

Nice to have the time ...

Although not necessarily at the time ... like 20 mins to fit the
engine / gearbox and two hours to fit a door handle ...

Hmm. You're not good at fitting door handles then ?

Yes, it was just a very 'awkward (blind) job up inside the door where
most of it had to be done by feel.

Never mind, next time it will be faster.

The 'next time' was the other side and it was ... by about 10 mins ..
(no less 'blind'. no less awkward).

I hope you didn't damage your nails ...

Not that I remember .. but they were less brittle then ..

My imagination's working overtime!

Indeed .. but shouldn't you be out threshing some corn for tomorrows
breakfast toast Mary? Or do you have the time for all these luxuries
because 'spouse' does everything for you?

All the best ..

T i m

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I sometimes have selective deafness :-)

Ah, yes, the wife had that the entire time the kids were waking at night.
"Isn't it nice when the kids sleep through the night" she would say,
breezily, each morning.

Perhaps she was so exhausted by her day's activities that she was genuinely
sleeping through it?

I did, Spouse would get the infant, fasten it to me, change it and put it
back. I knew nothing.

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

This installation has been stable for the last (nearly) three years.
When needed for long downloads it's been up for several days at a time
without problems. Something I'd not even have tried with W98. I gather
XP can be rather more troublesome - at least the installations of it
I've met have been.

Several *DAYS*???

That's appalling.

No, it's not. Several days was as long as it was up before I finished
doing what I was doing and switched it off. It hadn't fallen over at
that point, nor would I have expected it to.

ah, it sounded as though the downloads were taking days!

I'm not an apologist for Microsoft, but W2k is actually very stable and
falls over less often than SuSE 9.1 [1] which was my last brush with
Linux.

[1] Cue choruses of "Oh, you should have tried DebiuntuSeKnopthing" and
so on. This is where Linux currently falls down.

:-) Not from me!

Mary

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
I suppose that Microsoft has managed to fool people that a few days
without reboot is good.

No, they've fooled people that a few days without reboot is *bad* and that
puters *should* be rebooted at least daily.

I've never been persuaded either way, I don't leave the pc switched on when
I'm not using it though. What's the point?

Mary

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Yes, mostly, but not always an option and my point, please see
above or convenient (takes more time and if you don't want to make a
hobby of getting some sustenance ... ).

Oh, sustenance for us isn't a hobby. We want the best and aren't prepared
to
accept anything less.

Nice to have the time ...

sure, when God made time she made plenty of it :-)

In fact it doesn't take as much time as it does to shop and it's much more
pleasant.

Although not necessarily at the time ... like 20 mins to fit the
engine / gearbox and two hours to fit a door handle ...

Hmm. You're not good at fitting door handles then ?

Yes, it was just a very 'awkward (blind) job up inside the door where
most of it had to be done by feel.

Never mind, next time it will be faster.

The 'next time' was the other side and it was ... by about 10 mins ..
(no less 'blind'. no less awkward).

Tolja!

I hope you didn't damage your nails ...

Not that I remember .. but they were less brittle then ..

My imagination's working overtime!

Indeed .. but shouldn't you be out threshing some corn for tomorrows
breakfast toast Mary? Or do you have the time for all these luxuries
because 'spouse' does everything for you?

He does what he's best at, I do what I'm best at. I plan and prepare our
meals. Last night I made enough bread to last for three or four weeks in the
oven he built which will see us out. The cost? The flour. The time? Very
little, it was done between doing other things. The result? Far better than
any commercial bread we've ever tasted. Oh, and the residual heat cooked the
stag turkey leg which we're going to have tonight with salad and potatoes
from the garden - no digging, fertiliser courtesy of the hens, saved seed so
no cost and llittle time. Lots of enjoyment and satisfaction though - once
you get yourself organised..

As I said about something else, it's not possible for everyone but there's
always some way of organising life to make it more worthwhile. This is a
d-i-y group after all, that extends to more than putting up shelves and
painting :-)

Mary

All the best ..

T i m

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I did, Spouse would get the infant, fasten it to me, change it and put it
back. I knew nothing.

Yup, Squid did that with both kids.

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

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

ah, it sounded as though the downloads were taking days!

Some do.

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:03:07 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Indeed .. but shouldn't you be out threshing some corn for tomorrows
breakfast toast Mary? Or do you have the time for all these luxuries
because 'spouse' does everything for you?

He does what he's best at, I do what I'm best at. I plan and prepare our
meals.

So, just one job then ..?

Last night I made enough bread to last for three or four weeks

And where can you store all that?

in the
oven he built which will see us out.

And that's wood fired then .. and you get your wood from .. using what
transport? And how long does it take to fire up .. and how big is your
kitchen ..?


The cost? The flour. The time? Very
little, it was done between doing other things.

So to grow / buy / gather / mix the ingredients takes more time than
buying the finished article on yer way home from work?

The result? Far better than
any commercial bread we've ever tasted.

Quite possibly .. supply (to our door) some of the same at = to the
price we pay for the commercial stuff and we'll probably agree?

Oh, and the residual heat cooked the
stag turkey leg which we're going to have tonight with salad and potatoes
from the garden

Hmm, we had salad from the Supermarket with some of my home grown toms
and cucumber (can't say I could taste the difference though)?

- no digging,

What, your produce leaps out the ground on it's own?

fertiliser courtesy of the hens,

Nowhere to keep hens, let alone their cr*p ;-)

saved seed so
no cost

I've done some of that ..

and llittle time.

Not sure about that .. prep, planting, fertilizing, watering,
tending, picking ...

Lots of enjoyment and satisfaction though

I dare say .. assuming you have nothing *more enjoyable* you would
rather be doing with the time? Like archery, we all did it and were
reasonably good at it but given the choice the missus would rather be
clay shooting or motorcycling?

- once
you get yourself organised..

Ah, that's me shagged then .. I don't like planning .. and why I
bought a GPS .. takes me where I want to go, the instant I find myself
going there .. no time wasted 'planning' the journey or reading maps
etc ?


As I said about something else, it's not possible for everyone but there's
always some way of organising life to make it more worthwhile.

Probably why I (we) don't do much of that type of thing then .. wife
asks 'what do you want for dinner' not tells me what we have to eat
because it's in the oven because something else is being cooked? (the
only time that has happened was when I heated a pie whilst heating a
crankcase pre bearing removal) ;-)

This is a
d-i-y group after all, that extends to more than putting up shelves and
painting :-)

Yes, it's a d-i-y not a d-i-a-y though .. ? ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. When (if) I retire I just *might* get chance to finish the 1024
jobs currently outstanding before I die .. (let alone have the time /
interest to bake my own bread (etc)) (although I have done so with my
Daughter for 'fun').

On 2006-07-30 11:49:33 +0100, Guy King said:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

This installation has been stable for the last (nearly) three years.
When needed for long downloads it's been up for several days at a time
without problems. Something I'd not even have tried with W98. I gather
XP can be rather more troublesome - at least the installations of it
I've met have been.

Several *DAYS*???

That's appalling.

No, it's not. Several days was as long as it was up before I finished
doing what I was doing and switched it off. It hadn't fallen over at
that point, nor would I have expected it to.

Ah, that's OK then.




I'm not an apologist for Microsoft, but W2k is actually very stable and
falls over less often than SuSE 9.1 [1] which was my last brush with
Linux.

This would set you at variance with the experience of most designers
and users of serious server platforms.

On 2006-07-30 16:55:49 +0100, "Mary Fisher" said:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
I suppose that Microsoft has managed to fool people that a few days
without reboot is good.

No, they've fooled people that a few days without reboot is *bad* and
that puters *should* be rebooted at least daily.

I've never been persuaded either way, I don't leave the pc switched on
when I'm not using it though. What's the point?

Mary

Because if it's an application or other server platform, it is left on
continuously.

If you have only a single workstation PC doing basic stuff then it
doesn't matter that much.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:03:07 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Indeed .. but shouldn't you be out threshing some corn for tomorrows
breakfast toast Mary? Or do you have the time for all these luxuries
because 'spouse' does everything for you?

He does what he's best at, I do what I'm best at. I plan and prepare our
meals.

So, just one job then ..?

Don't be daft! We were only talking about meals, I thought :-)

Last night I made enough bread to last for three or four weeks

And where can you store all that?

The very efficient freezer.

in the
oven he built which will see us out.

And that's wood fired then .. and you get your wood from ..

The garden and other people's gardens. There's a lot of it about.

using what
transport?

Um - legs :-)

And how long does it take to fire up ..

the fire itself takes about an hour.

and how big is your
kitchen ..?

Eh? That's irrelevant!

Sigh.


The cost? The flour. The time? Very
little, it was done between doing other things.

So to grow / buy / gather / mix the ingredients takes more time than
buying the finished article on yer way home from work?

I don't go out to work, I'd have to make a special journey.

The result? Far better than
any commercial bread we've ever tasted.

Quite possibly .. supply (to our door)

Using a vehicle?

:-)

some of the same at = to the
price we pay for the commercial stuff and we'll probably agree?

That is incomprehensible ...

Oh, and the residual heat cooked the
stag turkey leg which we're going to have tonight with salad and potatoes
from the garden

Hmm, we had salad from the Supermarket with some of my home grown toms
and cucumber (can't say I could taste the difference though)?

shrug

- no digging,

What, your produce leaps out the ground on it's own?

fertiliser courtesy of the hens,

Nowhere to keep hens, let alone their cr*p ;-)

I've repeatedly said that not everyone can do what we do. But everyone can
do something towards improving their own life and the environment.

saved seed so
no cost

I've done some of that ..

and little time.

Not sure about that .. prep,

Very little time.

planting,

Very little time.

fertilizing,

Hens do that in winter.

watering,

Automatic in the greenhouse, God does the rest, mostly.

tending,

Tending?

picking ...

A pleasure to have the freshest produce.

Lots of enjoyment and satisfaction though

I dare say .. assuming you have nothing *more enjoyable* you would
rather be doing with the time? Like archery, we all did it and were
reasonably good at it but given the choice the missus would rather be
clay shooting or motorcycling?

Archery is only one of the other things we do. I hate being on the bike but
do it because Spouse loves it. You can't eat clays ...

- once
you get yourself organised..

Ah, that's me shagged then .. I don't like planning .. and why I
bought a GPS .. takes me where I want to go, the instant I find myself
going there .. no time wasted 'planning' the journey or reading maps
etc ?

That's no problem, I take my own navigator in the passenger seat :-)


As I said about something else, it's not possible for everyone but there's
always some way of organising life to make it more worthwhile.

Probably why I (we) don't do much of that type of thing then .. wife
asks 'what do you want for dinner' not tells me what we have to eat
because it's in the oven because something else is being cooked? (the
only time that has happened was when I heated a pie whilst heating a
crankcase pre bearing removal) ;-)

From what I've seen of people who do that they end up eating very similar
meals from week to week. I like to give surprises :-) It's very satisfying
for both of us.

This is a
d-i-y group after all, that extends to more than putting up shelves and
painting :-)

Yes, it's a d-i-y not a d-i-a-y though .. ? ;-)

Nobody's a super hero - not even you :-)


p.s. When (if) I retire I just *might* get chance to finish the 1024
jobs currently outstanding before I die ..

Is that ALL? That number will grow after you retire ... But you could always
get a man in to do them. I keep threatening to do that, it always works :-)

(let alone have the time /
interest to bake my own bread (etc)) (although I have done so with my
Daughter for 'fun').

Ah - that's why you think it's difficult :-)

I've done it for forty odd years, it's second nature. It's also second
nature to expect the best, which is why we do everything we can ourselves.

A son is MSNing at the same time I'm trying to answer this, multi-tasking
comes naturally to most women of course but I am wondering if I'm telling
him about tomatoes ...

Mary

wrote:

Tim (and everyone else!),

Do you, or anyone know if connecting additional waterbutts together at
the bottom (so only one tap is required to be used from the first
butt) if I need to make sure the connection to the additional
waterbutts is above (or below) the tap on the first butt or not?

I read a post where someone said they used the existing tap hole to
connect the additional waterbutts so maybe that answers my question?

Will any of this weird 'back presure' or anything else odd happen, eg:
the overflow stop working and it flood or the additional waterbutts
fail to fill anything horrible like that?

cheers
ben.


"T i m" wrote in message
...

massive snip
I have four butts connected together with hose running between the taps.
There are "T" pieces in the hose to make this possible. There is
another "T" to come off to the tap. I was concerned that air locks
might form but they haven't - presumably once the pipe is full of water
it stays like that. No extra holes were put in the butts.

If you are feeding one butt from a roof or something you may find that
the feed butt fills too fast and overflows. I don't have that problem
but if it happened I'd either use a larger bore hose or arrange to
share the feed water between butts by an additional high level big bore
link.

Just try it.

Edgar

Excellent, thanks Edgar.

The feed from the roof has an 'automatic overflow' which works
perfectly at the moment, this should still work even with the 2
additional butts connected, right?

I like the T piece idea, like you say I won't have to drill any more
holes although I think I'd prefer to perhaps have an additional hole in
the first butt which then goes to Ts in each of the second two butts
just to keep the pipes out of the way so they don't get snagged (the
waterbutts are actually _inside_ our garage!)

Could you suggest a make of Ts, or a website?

Do the Ts screw into the existing tap hole?

cheers
ben

Edgar Iredale wrote:
I have four butts connected together with hose running between the taps.
There are "T" pieces in the hose to make this possible. There is
another "T" to come off to the tap. I was concerned that air locks
might form but they haven't - presumably once the pipe is full of water
it stays like that. No extra holes were put in the butts.

If you are feeding one butt from a roof or something you may find that
the feed butt fills too fast and overflows. I don't have that problem
but if it happened I'd either use a larger bore hose or arrange to
share the feed water between butts by an additional high level big bore
link.

Just try it.

Edgar

On 6 Aug 2006 12:35:50 -0700, wrote:

Tim (and everyone else!),

Do you, or anyone know if connecting additional waterbutts together at
the bottom (so only one tap is required to be used from the first butt)
if I need to make sure the connection to the additional waterbutts is
above (or below) the tap on the first butt or not?

It won't matter. as soon as the first butt reaches the level of the
interconnecting pipe(s) it will cross fill till they reach equilibrium
and will stay like that till they (all) reach the input level. The
advantage of this 'lower than input' cross coupling is there is no
'back pressure issue on the gravity diverter feed'. Unfortunately the
butts I used are quite contoured and have specific mouldings in them
for the input (and overflow[1] / coupling) fittings. Also, because of
space limitations my 3 butts are pretty well side-by-side so no room
for any real height differences between i/p's and o/p's. With
hindsight I might have been able to mount the interconnects at the
45deg position and lower down each butt (I would only do it a couple
of inches lower than the input in case a tap get's knocked on or a
pipe get's pulled off .. my 3 butts are right by the back door) and
still might be able to if I blank the two holes I have drilled .. ;-(

I read a post where someone said they used the existing tap hole to
connect the additional waterbutts so maybe that answers my question?

;-)

Will any of this weird 'back presure' or anything else odd happen, eg:
the overflow stop working and it flood or the additional waterbutts
fail to fill anything horrible like that?

You won't suffer the 'back pressure I mentioned because the input to
the first butt will be clear until all the butts have reached the
input fitting level (unlike my arrangement). However the two butts
that I currently have connected are both filled to the brim .. just
don't know if the second was filled as efficiently as the first?

All the best ..

T i m

[1] You wouldn't *want* an overflow if you use the down pipe diverter
type fitting as the surplus should go down the drain as before ..
handy to keep the drains clear and put some water back into the system
;-)

wrote:

Excellent, thanks Edgar.

The feed from the roof has an 'automatic overflow' which works
perfectly at the moment, this should still work even with the 2
additional butts connected, right?

Yes. But it may operate before it is really needed because it will
depend on the level in tank 1. And tank 1 is likely to have a higher
level than tank 2, which is likely to be higher than tank 3 and so
forth because of the flow rate in the pipes between tanks is slower
than the rate of incoming water. Bigger interconnections are the answer
- hence the idea of a high level link using large diameter pipe. Or
leave it alone and find your tanks aren't full even after a cloud
burst. It's all about how much you need ALL the water possible and how
far you are prepared to go to get it.


I like the T piece idea, like you say I won't have to drill any more
holes although I think I'd prefer to perhaps have an additional hole
in the first butt which then goes to Ts in each of the second two
butts just to keep the pipes out of the way so they don't get snagged
(the waterbutts are actually _inside_ our garage!)

Could you suggest a make of Ts, or a website?

Do the Ts screw into the existing tap hole?

Mine don't. They fit into the pipe linking first and last tanks. And
they are just simple push-in hose linking "T"s from Gardena or some
such make. So for four tanks there are 2 "T"s plus an extra for the
outlet tap. Draw it out on paper and you'll get the idea.

Edgar


8----

edgar

Edgar Iredale wrote:

wrote:

Excellent, thanks Edgar.

The feed from the roof has an 'automatic overflow' which works
perfectly at the moment, this should still work even with the 2
additional butts connected, right?

Yes. But it may operate before it is really needed because it will
depend on the level in tank 1. And tank 1 is likely to have a higher
level than tank 2, which is likely to be higher than tank 3 and so
forth because of the flow rate in the pipes between tanks is slower
than the rate of incoming water. Bigger interconnections are the
answer - hence the idea of a high level link using large diameter
pipe. Or leave it alone and find your tanks aren't full even after a
cloud burst. It's all about how much you need ALL the water possible
and how far you are prepared to go to get it.


I like the T piece idea, like you say I won't have to drill any more
holes although I think I'd prefer to perhaps have an additional hole
in the first butt which then goes to Ts in each of the second two
butts just to keep the pipes out of the way so they don't get snagged
(the waterbutts are actually _inside_ our garage!)

Could you suggest a make of Ts, or a website?

Do the Ts screw into the existing tap hole?

Mine don't. They fit into the pipe linking first and last tanks. And
they are just simple push-in hose linking "T"s from Gardena or some
such make. So for four tanks there are 2 "T"s plus an extra for the
outlet tap. Draw it out on paper and you'll get the idea.

Edgar


8----

edgar

I probably should have said all my tanks are on the same level.

Edgar

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:10:46 +0100, Edgar Iredale
wrote:

And tank 1 is likely to have a higher
level than tank 2, which is likely to be higher than tank 3 and so
forth because of the flow rate in the pipes between tanks is slower
than the rate of incoming water.

If we didn't have a hosepipe ban I'd lay a hose in the gutter and time
the filling of the first then second tanks and see exactly what
difference it makes ;-) (I know I *can* fill the butts using the hose
but they are both full to-the-brim atm).

Bigger interconnections are the answer
- hence the idea of a high level link using large diameter pipe.

Out of interest, I guess the feed pipe from my diverter is nominally
3/4" and the linking pipes ~1" . In fact the linking pipe is very
short, to the point that the fittings are touching each other, whereas
the diverter pipe is one of the corrugated jobbies (worse
hydrodynamically) and quite long.

Something else I was thinking was that the 'head' over the diverter is
about 30mm whereas there is no real head between the butts when full.
However because the interconnecting pipes are so short, straight and
quite large diameter the flow between butts should be quite 'easy'?

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:04:28 GMT, T i m wrote:

Hi All,

I have recently bought 3 x 'Slimline' (100l) water butts and hooked
one to the main down pipe with one of those water diverter fittings.

The first decent batch of rain filled the first butt and that in turn
filled the second (not got the 3rd coupled yet, can't find the
connection kits easily?).

Question to those who know how these (passive) diverters work [1]
*is*, would the back pressure of cross filling the second butt mean it
wouldn't fill as efficiently as it filled the first?

I was thinking it might be better to split the feed *before* it enters
the butts .. or 'daisy chain the feed across the input of all 3 butts
(assuming that would reduce any chance of back pressure slowing the
feed)?

All the best ...

T i m

[1] It's not a condensing boiler so Dr Drivel need not reply and yes,
there may be an 'alt.obscure.noreplies' ng Mr Bacon but I'm happy here
thanks! ;-)


Apologies if you take this the wrong way..... but did this subject
really require over 100 replies? It's a coupled water butt, a piece
of hose somewhere other than above the water line and preferably as
low as possible and it's connected to another one. Both fill together
and drain together, end of story.

FFS why would you, and seemingly just about everyone else who has
posted in this thread want to make it complicated?

hydro-bloody-dynamics :-)


--

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:05:39 +0100 someone who may be Matt
wrote this:-

Apologies if you take this the wrong way..... but did this subject
really require over 100 replies? It's a coupled water butt, a piece
of hose somewhere other than above the water line and preferably as
low as possible and it's connected to another one.

Indeed. However, at least one of the on-line suppliers shows such
connections made at the top. I have thought about this, on and off,
for months, but have yet to think of a good reason for making such
a connection.

Both fill together and drain together, end of story.

Indeed. The only thing to add is that the tap should be on the one
furthest from the supply, to ensure maximum turnover of water.


--
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

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:08:41 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:05:39 +0100 someone who may be Matt
wrote this:-

Apologies if you take this the wrong way..... but did this subject
really require over 100 replies? It's a coupled water butt, a piece
of hose somewhere other than above the water line and preferably as
low as possible and it's connected to another one.

Indeed. However, at least one of the on-line suppliers shows such
connections made at the top. I have thought about this, on and off,
for months, but have yet to think of a good reason for making such
a connection.

Both fill together and drain together, end of story.

Indeed. The only thing to add is that the tap should be on the one
furthest from the supply, to ensure maximum turnover of water.

Friend did his with siphons. Disadvantage : it's not automatic, and you
can't drain it fully. Advantage : no need for plumbing, with potential leaks
below the water line. I think they've not needed priming for a long time
now.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW! It's a couple of water butt and a lengths of
pipe. You don't need to make it complicated

aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!


--

"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:08:41 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:05:39 +0100 someone who may be Matt
wrote this:-

Apologies if you take this the wrong way..... but did this subject
really require over 100 replies? It's a coupled water butt, a piece
of hose somewhere other than above the water line and preferably as
low as possible and it's connected to another one.

Indeed. However, at least one of the on-line suppliers shows such
connections made at the top. I have thought about this, on and off,
for months, but have yet to think of a good reason for making such
a connection.

Both fill together and drain together, end of story.

Indeed. The only thing to add is that the tap should be on the one
furthest from the supply, to ensure maximum turnover of water.

Friend did his with siphons. Disadvantage : it's not automatic, and you
can't drain it fully. Advantage : no need for plumbing, with potential
leaks
below the water line. I think they've not needed priming for a long time
now.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW! It's a couple of water butt and a lengths of
pipe. You don't need to make it complicated

aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!

Yup, you've just described the siphon solution. If you go for anything else,
you definitely need more than just a length of pipe - you've got to put a
hole in the butt, pipe connectors and make sure they're sealed. Or if your
link is at the top, you can't just use one tap.

Sorry....

cheers,
clive

I'm considering a waterbutt-webcam :-)

sorry, multiply that by 3 - one cam for each butt.

"butt-cam"

~WBAS (WaterButt Appreciation Society) - I bet it already exists

Matt wrote:

STOP IT RIGHT NOW! It's a couple of water butt and a lengths of
pipe. You don't need to make it complicated

aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!


--

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:05:39 +0100, Matt
wrote:


Apologies if you take this the wrong way..... but did this subject
really require over 100 replies?

Apologies also etc but why does it matter to you? I'm not sure what
Newsreader you use but I actually have to make an effort to see if
anyone has replied to a older thread?

It's a coupled water butt, a piece
of hose somewhere other than above the water line and preferably as
low as possible and it's connected to another one. Both fill together
and drain together, end of story.

Indeed. But it wasn't the mechanics of how to join them together that
I was asking about (you did read the op along with the 100 replies I
assume Matt g)?

FFS why would you, and seemingly just about everyone else who has
posted in this thread want to make it complicated?

Because that's life? Some of us just bang a couple of holes
'somewhere', join them up and go down the pub. Others might like to
consider the best or other 'ways to do it', or just confirm their idea
was sound? Also, I can't just use "a piece of hose somewhere other
than above the water line and preferably as low as possible and it's
connected to another one" as these buts are quite small, so have quite
a curved section and the inlet and outlet points are pre moulded where
they are?

Maybe we should all just ask *you* when we have a question next time
Matt? ;-)

hydro-bloody-dynamics :-)

LOL ..

Well, that was the thought behind the op anyway .. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I'm still trying to find a 'Marley' butt coupling kit to match
the first one and the 1" hose I've bought. I happened to be passing a
Co today that supplied fancy irrigation systems and they had similar
tank couplings they had made up from short lengths of high pressure
plastic pipe that had been threaded to half way and were supplied with
a couple of flange nuts and a rubber washer. I asked him how that
could seal .. with the two nuts on the thread etc? He couldn't give me
a reply that sounded right hydro-mechanically? shrug

The fact that it probably wouldn't leak wasn't the point. It was more
about the principal of someone who I feel should know better ..
(assuming I was correct etc)?

In message , Matt
writes
Indeed. The only thing to add is that the tap should be on the one
furthest from the supply, to ensure maximum turnover of water.

Friend did his with siphons. Disadvantage : it's not automatic, and you
can't drain it fully. Advantage : no need for plumbing, with potential leaks
below the water line. I think they've not needed priming for a long time
now.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW! It's a couple of water butt and a lengths of
pipe. You don't need to make it complicated

aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!

Don't be silly ...

of course they do


--
geoff

I love this thread.

What's the max size plastic piping (with attachment plastic bits and
bobs, ie: thread, bolts etc) that are purchasable to connect my butts
together (at the bottom, obviously :-)? (and where from)

Any ideas?

cheers
ben.

On 7 Aug 2006 13:57:57 -0700, wrote:

I love this thread.

Don't tell Matt ;-)

What's the max size plastic piping (with attachment plastic bits and
bobs, ie: thread, bolts etc) that are purchasable to connect my butts
together (at the bottom, obviously :-)? (and where from)

The item I used to connect butts 1 and 2 was a Marley 'Water butt
connector' (no! g) RDC26R. I can't remember where I got mine from
but am looking around now for another (not available that I could see
in B&Q, Wikes, Homebase or a local plumbers merchants. Maybe a bigger
builders merchants that stocks the Marley rainwater goods range or a
garden center would have them)?

The good points are it has a fairly large diameter (the stub is 1" OD)
and fairly short (handy if yer butts are close together) ;-)

It comes with a length of that ribbed hardish plastic flexible hose
but black 1" ID hose can be bought from decent garden centers (a
neater fit on the 1" stub).

All the best ..

T i m

Message #2,000,012 :-)

Nice one, thanks Tim, I'll visit my local builders merchants for the
biggest damn boar piping I can find (luckily these space-saver
waterbutts have a good area of smooth plastic towards the bottom for
'unofficial' pipe connections.

Now, okay, it's a given that the butt-to-butt pipe should go at the
bottom of the waterbutt (that's what I've taken away from reading this
thread anyway). And in my sleep I came up with the bottom line of the
difference between placing this pipe above or below the level of the
tap of the first butt... (incidentally, the tap in the first butt will
be the only tap).

(1) Butt-to-butt connector - Above the tap line
If it's above, you have to wait less time to use some water (ie: the
first tank will fill above the tap line until it reaches the line of
the butt-to-butt pipe line - this amount of water is then usable until
the water level falls below the tap in the first butt. Of course any
water that trickles into the second water butt at that point is 'lost'.
Advantage: Use water sooner
Disadvantage: More water is 'held up' in the additional butts

(2) Butt-to-butt connector - Below the tap line
If its below the tap line you have to wait for all 3 (in my case)
waterbutts to fill above the tap line. At which point, I think, you
technically have more water to use - because it's multiplied by 3 - and
as the water level drops water from the additional waterbutts levels it
out - and again stopping until that combined level drops below the tap
line.
Advantage: Use more of the water (less 'lost')
Disadvantage: Wait longer before you can use water

As to which is better on the face of it I would (1)'above' is but for
some reason my head prefers (2)'below'. I guess the real conclusion is
to use (1)'above' with additional taps in each of the additional
waterbutts - but for some reason I just want to use one tap :-)

ben.


T i m wrote:
On 7 Aug 2006 13:57:57 -0700, wrote:

I love this thread.

Don't tell Matt ;-)

What's the max size plastic piping (with attachment plastic bits and
bobs, ie: thread, bolts etc) that are purchasable to connect my butts
together (at the bottom, obviously :-)? (and where from)

The item I used to connect butts 1 and 2 was a Marley 'Water butt
connector' (no! g) RDC26R. I can't remember where I got mine from
but am looking around now for another (not available that I could see
in B&Q, Wikes, Homebase or a local plumbers merchants. Maybe a bigger
builders merchants that stocks the Marley rainwater goods range or a
garden center would have them)?

The good points are it has a fairly large diameter (the stub is 1" OD)
and fairly short (handy if yer butts are close together) ;-)

It comes with a length of that ribbed hardish plastic flexible hose
but black 1" ID hose can be bought from decent garden centers (a
neater fit on the 1" stub).

All the best ..

T i m

On 8 Aug 2006 23:50:00 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Now, okay, it's a given that the butt-to-butt pipe should go at the
bottom of the waterbutt (that's what I've taken away from reading this
thread anyway). And in my sleep I came up with the bottom line of the
difference between placing this pipe above or below the level of the
tap of the first butt... (incidentally, the tap in the first butt will
be the only tap).

Not a good idea. The water in the other butts will stagnate and
become a breeding ground for all sorts of unwelcome guests, some
visible some invisible.

I strongly recommend you link them together at low level, with the
tap furthest from the inlet pipe.


--
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