On Dec 31 2011, 1:42*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:14:21 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:



Steam heating is unsuited to smallish systems. It has been abandoned
for this purpose in most places.
It has none of the avantages a large system has and *all of the
disadvantages.
Only in America.

You actually made sense, but then you had to add the last line to
insult a country. *Are you really that much of a scumbag? *You give
the rest of the Brits a bad name. *You have a strange way of achieving
your orgasm.

You don't know the size of the system so to make a comment it is
inappropriate to use steam is wrong. *One advantage of steam is the
ability to transport energy over long distances and to greater heights
than water. *With water, you need much more power and larger pumps.

If it has 2" pipework and it is unmanned , it is small.
Steam heating was largely devised so that large buildings/collections
of buildings could be heated from a central source using coal/oil and
a minimum of labour and dirt and inconvenience in the heated
buildings.

However all steam boilers are inherently inefficient and there are
massive distribution losses.
There may well be pumping of feedwater and condensate, (Depending on
how antiquated the system is.)

So if you are heating with gas (or even oil these days) there are vast
savings to be made by decentralising, locating small (non-steam)
boilers close to the buildings to be heated.

It's therefore amazing that here is a tiny steam boiler only two years
old.
A modern system would pay back in only a few years in the fuel
savings.

Only the most conservative idiot would contemplate such a thing.
Only in fact in America.