Hi,

I have or had a water softener fitted about 4 years ago. It was
comissioned at the time and I believe the pressure was below the
maximum limit of 70 psi or else it would not have comissioned by the
istallers (waterside)

While on holiday it leaked a large amount of water onto my kitchen
floor due to a fractured collar seal. The softener engineer measured
the pressure and it's now 100 psi , which is way above the limit for
this device.

has anyone had a device fail (softener, combi boiler, plumbing in
general) where it was due to the mains pressure being increased ? If so
were you able to get any redress from the water authority.
I'm with southeast water.

The implication is that the pressure may be increased without
notification, which I'm guessing could cause devices to fail. Are we
supposed to monitor the water pressure at all times ?

many thanks

wrote:
Are we
supposed to monitor the water pressure at all times ?

No; you're supposed to fit a pressure reducing valve with a downstream
pressure relief valve to protect anything that might be damaged by high
pressure.

Although they may have measured the water pressure at installation
during the day, the maximum occurs during the night when there is
little consumption and so less pressure lost due to friction between
pump and outlets.

If the device maximum rated pressure is less than the water authority's
statutory maximum, it's down to you or the installer (can we guess what
their response will be? ). Just putting in an insurance claim might be
the path of least grief.

wrote:
Hi,

I have or had a water softener fitted about 4 years ago. It was
comissioned at the time and I believe the pressure was below the
maximum limit of 70 psi or else it would not have comissioned by
the istallers (waterside)

While on holiday it leaked a large amount of water onto my kitchen
floor due to a fractured collar seal. The softener engineer
measured the pressure and it's now 100 psi , which is way above
the limit for this device.

You have mains pressure at 100psi, eg nearly 7bar?
That sounds extraordinarily high to me, but IANAP

In message , Steve Walker
writes
wrote:
Hi,

I have or had a water softener fitted about 4 years ago. It was
comissioned at the time and I believe the pressure was below the
maximum limit of 70 psi or else it would not have comissioned by
the istallers (waterside)

While on holiday it leaked a large amount of water onto my kitchen
floor due to a fractured collar seal. The softener engineer
measured the pressure and it's now 100 psi , which is way above
the limit for this device.

You have mains pressure at 100psi, eg nearly 7bar?
That sounds extraordinarily high to me, but IANAP

I have exactly the same situation. Current pressure 100psi and
presumably less than 70 ten years ago.

I suspect the initial response to low supply pressure found in
multi-storey flats built on hill tops, is to jack up the system
pressure. Those living in valleys don't need to invest in pressure
washers.

regards




--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

I suspect the initial response to low supply pressure found in
multi-storey flats built on hill tops, is to jack up the system
pressure.

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage. Some high-rises now need basement pressure boosters
when they weren't needed previously. Not a problem for the water
suppliers though.

I don't know what the maximum permissible pressure is.

The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage.

Recently? They've been pulling that stunt in West London for decades!

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage.

Recently? They've been pulling that stunt in West London for decades!

The money making *******s want blocks to store water, not at the water
company expense, so they don't have to spend on building reservoirs. In
blocks the pump sets give the pressure on drinking water.

wrote:
has anyone had a device fail (softener, combi boiler, plumbing in
general) where it was due to the mains pressure being increased ? If so
were you able to get any redress from the water authority.

Yes, and yes. On Christmas day a couple of years ago an over-pressure
water supply caused the flexible hoses to many appliances in our
village to blow. We were fortunate that a switched-on resident brought
this to people's attention and later posted information in the village
rag on how to apply for compensation from Thames Water (we're in South
Oxfordshire). I applied for, and received, compensation for a repair
to a water softener. (The softener had not been damaged by the
over-pressure but the flexible hose which supplied it had blown.)

--Mike

p.s. Thanks to raden for the the Suprima PCB in autumn of last year.
It was a doddle to fit. It was a pleasure to do business with you.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Steve Walker"
saying something like:

You have mains pressure at 100psi, eg nearly 7bar?
That sounds extraordinarily high to me, but IANAP

My supply pressure is way above that during the small hours. A pressure
regulator is an absolute must around here - at the bottom of a 500'
hill, on top of which a reservoir/pumping station sits.

For years, I've wondered why the Council doesn't fit pressure regulators
in the main supplies, as they're forever digging up mains to repair
them. I suppose that's too easy.
--

Dave

The message
from Grimly Curmudgeon contains these words:

For years, I've wondered why the Council doesn't fit pressure regulators
in the main supplies, as they're forever digging up mains to repair
them. I suppose that's too easy.

S'not the council, is it? Not unless you're in Northern Ireland where
they still have public water.

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Guy King
saying something like:

For years, I've wondered why the Council doesn't fit pressure regulators
in the main supplies, as they're forever digging up mains to repair
them. I suppose that's too easy.

S'not the council, is it? Not unless you're in Northern Ireland where
they still have public water.

Southern Ireland. Where we don't have water charges or council tax. I
don't know how long that's going to last, now that the EU is making
noises about it.
--

Dave

The message
from Grimly Curmudgeon contains these words:

Where we don't have water charges

It just pays for itself?

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Grimly Curmudgeon contains these
words:

Where we don't have water charges

It just pays for itself?

The redistributed land which expanded the economy, which brought in more
general tax, which rendered council tax and water none chargeable. Land
re-distribution was one of the keys to the economic success of Ireland.

In the UK, most of a councils budget is from central government. Look at the
expense of collecting council tax at what they receive. Enormous. Bailiffs
in the UK make many, many millions collecting council tax, which adds misery
to people as they heavy ramp up charges and invade people's homes. A £200
debt can run up to £6,000 when bailiffs get involved. All needless. No need
for the silly tax at all.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:45:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage.

Recently? They've been pulling that stunt in West London for decades!

The money making *******s want blocks to store water, not at the water
company expense, so they don't have to spend on building reservoirs. In
blocks the pump sets give the pressure on drinking water.


There's nothing wrong with making money, per sec.

I certainly think that the game of turning down water pressures to reduce
leaks is unacceptable, just as I think that the minimum flow rate that they
are required to deliver at a certain height is too low.

However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a water supplier to deliver
the same for a tower block as for the two storey type of dwelling that most
of us inhabit.

How would one set the figure? Should it be for a 5 storey tenement, a 15
storey council block or a 50 storey office building at Canary Wharf?
If people are living in taller buildings than average then I think that it is
reasonable that the building should play a part in the supply

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

Southern Ireland. Where we don't have water charges or council tax. I
don't know how long that's going to last, now that the EU is making
noises about it.

They achieved that by redistributing land. There are no large land owners in
Ireland.

What a load of ****ing ****e.
--

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Guy King
saying something like:

The message
from Grimly Curmudgeon contains these words:

Where we don't have water charges

It just pays for itself?

Ignore DD's flight of fantasy. Some years back a vote-getting gov't
abolished domestic rates and lumped the cost of Council services on
business rates. Business howled at the time, but the voters were
pleased. Now the problem is that any gov't that re-introduces domestic
rates and water charges will be committing electoral suicide.

In the meantime, I sit and enjoy it.
--

Dave

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:45:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage.

Recently? They've been pulling that stunt in West London for decades!

The money making *******s want blocks to store water, not at the water
company expense, so they don't have to spend on building reservoirs. In
blocks the pump sets give the pressure on drinking water.


There's nothing wrong with making money, per sec.

Matt, not at the expense of giving poor service. They change the rules as
they go along.

How would one set the figure? Should
it be for a 5 storey tenement, a 15
storey council block or a 50 storey
office building at Canary Wharf?

Matt, they used to have a maximum in dwelling in a block that the mains
could deliver. After that, the block stored water for drinking. Many block
stored water on the roof, or basement (pumped up to flats) for non-drinking
purposes.

If people are living in taller buildings than average then I think that it
is
reasonable that the building should play a part in the supply

Matt, those people pay for the water too. Inside of having main pipe run
1/2 mile serving houses from the road, they run one vertically 50 foot.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
news
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Guy King
saying something like:

The message
from Grimly Curmudgeon contains these
words:

Where we don't have water charges

It just pays for itself?

Ignore DD's flight of fantasy. Some years back a vote-getting gov't
abolished domestic rates and lumped the cost of Council services on
business rates. Business howled at the time, but the voters were
pleased. Now the problem is that any gov't that re-introduces domestic
rates and water charges will be committing electoral suicide.

The reason they could charge businesses, was that business grew (many
companies emerged) as people could borrow on the value of their land (now
redistributed). The business that expanded because of land reform, shifted
the charge to the businesses not the householders. Works a treat.

I believe there is an extra charge in Dublin for services - there has to be
to pick up all the litter they are so fond of liberally distributing. The
last time I went to Dublin they were having a festival of litter.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

Southern Ireland. Where we don't have water charges or council tax. I
don't know how long that's going to last, now that the EU is making
noises about it.

They achieved that by redistributing land. There are no large land owners
in
Ireland.

What a load of ****ing ****e.

Are you saying there are large landowners in Ireland? Look at the work of
the Irish Land Commission. Disbanded in 2000 as job was done.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:44:08 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:45:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

The water company only has to supply 1 bar pressure. It's not their
concern if water doesn't get up to roof tanks in high blocks, so
they've recently been turning the pressures down to reduce the water
lost to leakage.

Recently? They've been pulling that stunt in West London for decades!

The money making *******s want blocks to store water, not at the water
company expense, so they don't have to spend on building reservoirs. In
blocks the pump sets give the pressure on drinking water.


There's nothing wrong with making money, per sec.

Matt, not at the expense of giving poor service. They change the rules as
they go along.

That could easily have been solved by structuring the water supply industry
in the same way as it has been for electricity and gas




How would one set the figure? Should
it be for a 5 storey tenement, a 15
storey council block or a 50 storey
office building at Canary Wharf?

Matt, they used to have a maximum in dwelling in a block that the mains
could deliver. After that, the block stored water for drinking. Many block
stored water on the roof, or basement (pumped up to flats) for non-drinking
purposes.

If people are living in taller buildings than average then I think that it
is
reasonable that the building should play a part in the supply

Matt, those people pay for the water too. Inside of having main pipe run
1/2 mile serving houses from the road, they run one vertically 50 foot.


50 feet would equate to 5-6 storeys.

This is very different to the stiuation for buildings of significantly
greater than that. Clearly it doesn't make sense to run the entire
distribution system at the pressure level that would be required to supply a
50 storey building.

Many years ago my parents new water softener failed . It was a plastic
Permutit unit made in France, the old unit was a 50's metal one. They
(Permutit's rep. I think) recorded the pressure over time and as a
result the plumber installed a pressure reducing valve, as the pressure
increased at night.

I had a problem when I replaced my old shower with a new Triton unit
with a fancy self-compensating temperature (flow really) control. If I
had a shower after midnight it would go unstable and hammer. Eventually
its pressure switch diaphragm failed.

I put a pressure gauge on the garden tap and discovered the pressure
went up to 100psi at night.

They was a sticker on my water softener which said 8.2bar max.,
(120psi.).
Remembering my parents problems, I checked with the softener people who
said 60psi would be better. They sold me a nice pressure reducing valve,
made by Syr with a gauge on the side.
This solved the shower problem and quietened down the softener when it
regenerated. I was surprised how much the supply pressure varied, rarely
reaching the 60psi set point during the day. (10 year old house on a
green field development).
I think that in most of the developed world pressure reducing valves are
standard fixtures in domestic installations. Water softeners are
obviously made with this in mind.

In message .com,
writes
Hi,

I have or had a water softener fitted about 4 years ago. It was
comissioned at the time and I believe the pressure was below the
maximum limit of 70 psi or else it would not have comissioned by the
istallers (waterside)

While on holiday it leaked a large amount of water onto my kitchen
floor due to a fractured collar seal. The softener engineer measured
the pressure and it's now 100 psi , which is way above the limit for
this device.

has anyone had a device fail (softener, combi boiler, plumbing in
general) where it was due to the mains pressure being increased ? If so
were you able to get any redress from the water authority.
I'm with southeast water.

The implication is that the pressure may be increased without
notification, which I'm guessing could cause devices to fail. Are we
supposed to monitor the water pressure at all times ?

many thanks


--
Neil J. Harris

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

The reason they could charge businesses, was that business grew (many
companies emerged) as people could borrow on the value of their land (now
redistributed). The business that expanded because of land reform, shifted
the charge to the businesses not the householders. Works a treat.

Utter mince. When the domestic rates were abolished the Irish economy
was in a parlous state - it was purely a vote-getting move.

I believe there is an extra charge in Dublin for services - there has to be
to pick up all the litter they are so fond of liberally distributing. The
last time I went to Dublin they were having a festival of litter.

There's an extra charge everywhere for domestic refuse collection, but
it's not imposed by the Council - you pay it to a private contractor.

The upside, as far as I'm concerned is that I'm paying for public
services I actually use through motor tax (the motor tax is paid to the
Council and goes into the general services pot) but I'm not paying
through the nose for services I don't use.

I foresee a problem with this though; when the oil runs out and
individual car ownership decreases, the tax take will diminish.
--

Dave

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:00:19 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
(in article ):

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

The reason they could charge businesses, was that business grew (many
companies emerged) as people could borrow on the value of their land (now
redistributed). The business that expanded because of land reform, shifted
the charge to the businesses not the householders. Works a treat.

Utter mince. When the domestic rates were abolished the Irish economy
was in a parlous state - it was purely a vote-getting move.

I believe there is an extra charge in Dublin for services - there has to be
to pick up all the litter they are so fond of liberally distributing. The
last time I went to Dublin they were having a festival of litter.

There's an extra charge everywhere for domestic refuse collection, but
it's not imposed by the Council - you pay it to a private contractor.

The upside, as far as I'm concerned is that I'm paying for public
services I actually use through motor tax (the motor tax is paid to the
Council and goes into the general services pot) but I'm not paying
through the nose for services I don't use.

I foresee a problem with this though; when the oil runs out and
individual car ownership decreases, the tax take will diminish.


Big assumption.

People will not want to go for public transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

It is far more likely that new forms of fuel and the means to use them will
emerge and/or people will pay more for independence. That in turn will feed
back into the economy creating market demand for the means to do this.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

The reason they could charge businesses, was that business grew (many
companies emerged) as people could borrow on the value of their land (now
redistributed). The business that expanded because of land reform,
shifted
the charge to the businesses not the householders. Works a treat.

Utter mince.

It isn't.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...

People will not want to go for public
transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

Matt, did the Daily Mail say that?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:44:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...

People will not want to go for public
transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

Matt, did the Daily Mail say that?



Do you believe it to be otherwise?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:44:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...

People will not want to go for public
transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

Matt, did the Daily Mail say that?

Do you believe it to be otherwise?

If the Daily Mail said, I do not believe it. They prone to telling porkies.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:17:50 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:44:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...

People will not want to go for public
transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

Matt, did the Daily Mail say that?

Do you believe it to be otherwise?

If the Daily Mail said, I do not believe it. They prone to telling porkies.


That's odd. You don't normally have difficulty believing everything in a
printed publication.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:17:50 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" akak Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:44:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...

People will not want to go for public
transport because it is inconvenient
and pretty disgusting.

Matt, did the Daily Mail say that?

Do you believe it to be otherwise?

If the Daily Mail said, I do not believe it.
They are prone to telling porkies.

That's odd.

Matt, it isn't odd, your favourite Little Middle England rags tells porkies.