On 28/04/2012 22:03, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:32:18 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 28/04/2012 20:30, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:07:33 +0100, kent wrote:

On Wednesday, 25 April 2012 20:05:20 UTC+1, Jim K wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:57:44 +0100, kent wrote:

This is probably a daft idea, but I'd be interesting to see if
there is
any mileage in it! Combi boilers tend to work best in smaller
properties, so for a larger property would it be possible (or
make any
sense) to have 2 combi boilers serving different parts of the house?
By "larger" I don't mean a mansion I mean a 4 bedroomed house with 3
showers!
Thanks for any thoughts on this.


ah the old ones are always the best....







nope! Thought of it all by myself! Is it that stupid then?

Only as stupid as having two engines in your car.


What if it was cheaper, and possibly more efficient, to couple two
smaller engines together?

That did happen in a few cars, I think it was more for performance though.

And I don't believe it could be cheaper and possibly more efficient to
couple two boilers.


The reason I felt obliged to post was from my own experience a number of
years ago, before condensing boilers became essentially compulsory.

I was putting a heating system in an old Victorian house. The size of
boiler required put it in the commercial floor standing category. I can
assure you, that in this instance, 2 condensing boilers were somewhat
cheaper than a single large boiler.

It also meant I could go for condensing boilers as I wasn't looking
forward to the gas bill. If required I could run just the one boiler,
and on the 2 occasions I had a fault I still had gas heated hot water,
and maintained background heat.

I suspect the goal posts have changed since, but the principles still
hold, especially in these days when boiler reliability is at an all time
low.