On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:00:14 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
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:
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.
They aren't in Scotland, and who checks anyway?
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.
Are you sure it was required? People seem to fit boilers that are capable of far more than they are given to do. For example mine is only lit half the time when powering all the radiators and the hot water tank.
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.
Mine has run unserviced for 14 years. Buy a Baxi.
--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com
A blonde is walking down a creek. While she's looking around she notices Judi walking along the other side of the creek. She yells to the other blonde. "Hey, how do I get to the other side?"
Judi replies, "You are on the other side!"