"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:58:40 +0000, Bryan Vranes wrote:

Moot points,
D-day is 2009, then TC says "everyone" operating any vessel in
coastal
waterways will have to have one.

Not quite. Everyone operating a MOTORIZED vessel. Hence the question...

Lloyd


You have an accident. Your lady can not drive you in the boat to help. She
has no operators card. Just have her get the card. Should be no problem
for a witch to pass the test.

Oooooh-Not nice....... grow up

B

"Bryan Vranes" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Oooooh-Not nice....... grow up

B



She even has a witch website. Wikken maybe?

Thank you Lloyd, I sit corrected.
I think every law or set of laws embody certain principles for the good
of those they protect. I think the present and coming laws set forth will
probably be amended continuously as the legal baby crawls and takes it's
first steps.
Perhaps Transport Canada is still having it's own tug of war with this
very issue. To those that aren't sure, who cannot wait, who must know "right
now" whether or not they are safe to operate their vessels now and in the
future there are 2 choices; Call TC and don't hangup until they give you an
answer, or, study 30 minutes, drop a couple of bucks and do the test- it
really is quite easy and you'll be able to rest easy for many nights to
come.

regards
Bryan

mmmmkay??? (eyebrows raising)

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:17:55 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:58:40 +0000, Bryan Vranes wrote:

Moot points,
D-day is 2009, then TC says "everyone" operating any vessel in
coastal
waterways will have to have one.

Not quite. Everyone operating a MOTORIZED vessel. Hence the question...

Lloyd


You have an accident. Your lady can not drive you in the boat to help. She has
no operators card. Just have her get the card. Should be no problem for a
witch to pass the test.

Uh-huh...YOU wanna tell her that?

She doesn't really like helming Far Cove or the Tin Boat, but she DOES like
putting around in Near Cove. If I can tell her she needs a license to do that,
she might actually get one.

She was going to get it at the boat show, but they were charging $40, plus the
$10 admission. Others (not at the boat show) charge as little as $25. But she
has ADD, so it's hard for her to knuckle down and study.

And yes, she is a witch, although she's more on the Kundalini path than wiccan
(don't ask me, I'm just a druid!)

Lloyd

"Don Dando" wrote in message news:r5_Nb.8413

.....Here's my cut at it: A motor is powered buy
electricity and an engine is the result of combustion.

I agree with you, basically, but here's a wrench to throw into it --

how do we categorize that thing referred to as a "hydraulic motor"?

What many friends and I arrived at over the years of trying to define all
the powered driving sources aboard large aircraft (combustion, electric,
hydraulic, pneumatic, etc.) is this: an internal or external combustion
engine converts a fuel (energy source) into an alternate energy form, and
that alternate energy form drives the mechanical device that converts the
energy to motion. A motor receives the driving energy form directly, and
uses it without further modification to drive the mechanical device that
converts the energy to motion. Thus, the thing that drives your car or boat
(gas or diesel), and the jet that powers a large aircraft, are all engines,
since they convert liquid fuel into air pressure, which ultimately drives
the device and converts to motion. An electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic
"motor" receives energy in a directly usable form, and converts to motion
without further change. Having said all that, the Europeans still refer to
motorcars, and motor sports, and huge numbers (perhaps a majority) of
Americans refer to that thing under the hood as their "motor".

JG

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:08:29 +0000, John Gaquin wrote:


"Don Dando" wrote in message news:r5_Nb.8413

.....Here's my cut at it: A motor is powered buy electricity and an engine is
the result of combustion.

I agree with you, basically, but here's a wrench to throw into it --

how do we categorize that thing referred to as a "hydraulic motor"?

What many friends and I arrived at over the years of trying to define all the
powered driving sources aboard large aircraft (combustion, electric, hydraulic,
pneumatic, etc.) is this:

Wow - you guys REALLY need to get a life!

Lloyd

I have a good one to give them headaches!

While having your canoe towed by a swimming dog is clearly not mechanical propulsion
what if you have her running in a wheel and the motion of that wheel is transfered
thru a contraption to turn a propeller?

It's clear to me you have an engine aboard but not a motor. :-)

But better: would you then need the PCO as it could be considered as a mechanical
propulsion device as by strict interpretation of the text of the regulation?

I think I will have a good time reading your arguments!!! ;-)))

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

Wow - you guys REALLY need to get a life!

Lloyd

I wouldn't call that an engine or mechanical propulsion any more than I would a
person with a set of oars, or a horse hauling a buggy a motor vehicle.

I wonder if a sail shouldn't be consider "mechanical" propulsion though. =|:-)
The mast and rigging are could be consider parts of a "machine" as well as the
sail. A vessel under sail is certainly not human powered. Not sure how you'd
rate the horsepower!!!!!

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:37:16 -0500, Jean Dufour
wrote:

While having your canoe towed by a swimming dog is clearly not mechanical propulsion
what if you have her running in a wheel and the motion of that wheel is transfered
thru a contraption to turn a propeller?

It's clear to me you have an engine aboard but not a motor. :-)