"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 23:53:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Richard" wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
snip

"IMM" wrote:
It is not quick recovery. It is a standard cylinder. Part L is the
new
better standard. With a quick recovery you could have got away with a
150
litre cylinder and maybe a 125. Quick recovery are cheaper to run as
the
boiler is operating more efficiently.


Why don't you read before you ramble. I said it was NOT a quick
recovery cylinder, just better than the old ones. Anyway does it
really matter if I can 'get away' with a 150l or 125l if I have the
cupboard space going begging. Further if I fill a 250 litre bath with
taps full on, do I really have enough hot water in 125l

A 150 yes, and you would save a lot of money in running costs.

THat's rubbish as well. The heat loss through even a standard Part L
cylinder is de minimis. The difference between a 150 litre and, say,
a 200litre is not even worth discussing.

Although less standing heat losses, no one is on about this point. A quick
recovery rakes all the boilers heat with boiler cycling.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003