Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure
misadvice is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Andy

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean
its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure misadvice
is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Andy

Seems simple enough to understand to me, until you complicated it with
profound pedantism and your hilarious subtle brand of condescension - that
is.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


RedOnRed wrote:
Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol

That's odd, my 1977 Ideal Standard floor stander was 55%.

76% for a 1973 model sounds a remarkable feat of engineering.

In 1973 with big flares, collars and lapels...wastage was a way of life.

RedOnRed wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...


RedOnRed wrote:

Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol


That's odd, my 1977 Ideal Standard floor stander was 55%.

76% for a 1973 model sounds a remarkable feat of engineering.

In 1973 with big flares, collars and lapels...wastage was a way of life.

Input, 24.3KW
Output, 18.5KW
To water, 17.6KW
To local ambient, 0.9KW

Or, another model

Input, 123KW
Output, 96KW
To water, 28.3KW
To local ambient, 1.8KW
Efficiency, 78%


Regards
Capitol

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14
years.

You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house is in
danger.

Is that the same as flooding foundations through faulty jointing of
plastic pipes with a hacksaw rather than spending pennies on the correct
tool?

Think we should be told.

BTW, I must have asked a hundred times for your advice on servicing a
boiler, safety wise. With no reply.

Others will draw their own conclusions.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John wrote:
No-one seems to have picked up on the rating of a replacement boiler. If
the old boiler was 60,000BTU/hr and ther new one is also 60,000BTU/hr
then it will modulate "down" from there and never up past it. Thus the
rate of heat up at maximum will only be the same as before. (Give or
take a little bit for a cleanbrand new heat exchanger)

Yup. Of course a modern boiler might well have a lower water capacity heat
exchanger and be made of a lower thermal mass body than a dino one. As I'd
expect. So like for like will heat up quicker. But that's got nothing to
do with whether it's a condenser or not.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:15:23 +0100, Capitol
wrote:



RedOnRed wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...


RedOnRed wrote:

Before you embark on a load of misleading figures. The efficiency of a 25
year old boiler is likely to be around 55% efficient. Like the one I just
got shot of.

1973, Ideal Standard efficiency, 76%

Regards
Capitol


That's odd, my 1977 Ideal Standard floor stander was 55%.

76% for a 1973 model sounds a remarkable feat of engineering.

In 1973 with big flares, collars and lapels...wastage was a way of life.

Input, 24.3KW
Output, 18.5KW
To water, 17.6KW
To local ambient, 0.9KW

Or, another model

Input, 123KW
Output, 96KW
To water, 28.3KW
To local ambient, 1.8KW
Efficiency, 78%


Regards
Capitol


Except that these are raw, optimum figures, not seasonally adjusted as
are used today.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Capitol wrote:
Input, 24.3KW
Output, 18.5KW
To water, 17.6KW
To local ambient, 0.9KW

Or, another model

Input, 123KW
Output, 96KW
To water, 28.3KW
To local ambient, 1.8KW
Efficiency, 78%

Those sound like bench efficiencies running at full load. The SEDBUK
efficiency formulae take account of the boiler running at 30% load
which for an old non-modulating CI boiler will result in it only
firing intermittently. When it switches off loads of heat stored in
the heat exchanger vanishes up the flue, and when it comes back on all
that CI has to be brought back up to temperature.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:
No-one seems to have picked up on the rating of a replacement boiler. If
the old boiler was 60,000BTU/hr and ther new one is also 60,000BTU/hr
then it will modulate "down" from there and never up past it. Thus the
rate of heat up at maximum will only be the same as before. (Give or
take a little bit for a cleanbrand new heat exchanger)

Yup. Of course a modern boiler might well have a lower water capacity heat
exchanger and be made of a lower thermal mass body than a dino one. As I'd
expect. So like for like will heat up quicker. But that's got nothing to
do with whether it's a condenser or not.


In terms of the total thermal mass of the heating system the variation to
mass contribution between high and low water content boilers will be three
quarters of sod-all. Whilst it exists, I think noticing the difference would
require very close study.
Of course there is nothing like the human mind for impressibility,
especially after spending lots of moneyg

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I had my one serviced for the first time when it broke down after 14
years.

You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house is in
danger.

Is that the same as flooding foundations

Flooding foundations has nothing to do with boiler services.

snip senile drivel

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


My God! Nothing worse than amateur misadvise. All boiler have to be
serviced once a year. A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean
its
own heat exchanger.



OK, sentence by sentence:

(1) No problem, I understand this one.

(2) misadvice? Advise is a verb, not a noun. But I;m not sure
misadvice is a word either!

(3) Boilers

(4) Enough of the pedantry, and the real point. What does that sentence
mean?

Are you foreign?

No-one seems to have picked up on the rating of a replacement boiler. If
the
old boiler was 60,000BTU/hr and ther new one is also 60,000BTU/hr then it
will modulate "down" from there and never up past it. Thus the rate of
heat
up at maximum will only be the same as before. (Give or take a little bit
for a cleanbrand new heat exchanger)

Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized to the house
to avoid excessive cycling (i.e. typically 10kW or 12kW ), whilst the new
modulating boiler needs no such treatment and will probably be a 28kW off
the shelf.

Modulating matters because you can (and do) install a much larger output
boiler.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
No-one seems to have picked up on the rating of a replacement boiler. If
the
old boiler was 60,000BTU/hr and ther new one is also 60,000BTU/hr then
it
will modulate "down" from there and never up past it. Thus the rate of
heat
up at maximum will only be the same as before. (Give or take a little
bit
for a cleanbrand new heat exchanger)

Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized to the
house
to avoid excessive cycling (i.e. typically 10kW or 12kW ), whilst the new
modulating boiler needs no such treatment and will probably be a 28kW off
the shelf.

Modulating matters because you can (and do) install a much larger output
boiler.

Which re-heats a quick recovery cylinder in no time, and a "very" fast warm
up of the CH too.

In article ,
Christian McArdle wrote:
Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized
to the house to avoid excessive cycling (i.e. typically 10kW or 12kW
),

It would have been sized to suit all but the coldest winter day, 18C
inside and -1 outside or whatever, whilst for half the heating season
the required heat is half this.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized
to the house to avoid excessive cycling

It would have been sized to suit all but the coldest winter day, 18C
inside and -1 outside or whatever, whilst for half the heating season
the required heat is half this.

Indeed. However, they couldn't do what is common practice now and size to 3
times the maximum required, as this would have led to a grossly inefficient
system.

Chrtistian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized
to the house to avoid excessive cycling

It would have been sized to suit all but the coldest winter day, 18C
inside and -1 outside or whatever, whilst for half the heating season
the required heat is half this.

Indeed. However, they couldn't do what is common practice now and size to
3
times the maximum required, as this would have led to a grossly
inefficient
system.


Whilst your assertation is correct the thread made no mention of increasing
the rating of the new boiler (and this may need a larger gas pipe).

Whilst your assertation is correct the thread made no mention of
increasing
the rating of the new boiler (and this may need a larger gas pipe).

Indeed. However I would guess that almost all condensing boiler
installations do considerably uprate the boiler power. So whilst it may be a
function of modern boiler's modulating capacity, rather than its condensing
nature, people replacing old boilers with condensing types are likely to see
much more rapid heating of the primary water circuit (and hence their
radiators).

Christian.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Except that these are raw, optimum figures, not seasonally adjusted as
are used today.

Trouble is that the seasonally adjusted ones are all very well, but don't
tell the true story as regards running costs. Most would expect a 100%
efficient boiler to use exactly half the amount of gas of a 50% one. But
once you introduce fiddle factors like seasonal adjustment things become
murky for the average punter trying to work out whether replacement of an
otherwise serviceable boiler is economic - and that's before the high
failure rate of expensive electronic components necessary for high
efficiency boilers is factored in.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house
is in danger.

Is that the same as flooding foundations

Flooding foundations has nothing to do with boiler services.

When did being on topic ever concern you?

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You are totally irresponsible and should be prosecuted. The house
is in danger.

Is that the same as flooding foundations

Flooding foundations has nothing to do with boiler services.

When did being on topic ever concern you?

It obviously doesn't concern you. His condition is past the point of no
return.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:24:57 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:

Except that the old non modulating boiler would have been sized
to the house to avoid excessive cycling

It would have been sized to suit all but the coldest winter day, 18C
inside and -1 outside or whatever, whilst for half the heating season
the required heat is half this.

Indeed. However, they couldn't do what is common practice now and size to 3
times the maximum required, as this would have led to a grossly inefficient
system.

By the book in order for the system to comply with Part L of the BRs the
size of the boiler should be chosen to suit the property.
This means using a simplifed heat loss calculator and sizing the boiler
according to the results.

I argued (as I am wont to do) with the course tutor on the C&G 6083 course
(which central heating installers are now required to have). My assertion
was that the calculations are only _part_ of the choice for boiler sizing
and should be taken in to account with what is already installed and how
well or otherwise it was working, together with experience of what works.
The tutor (or rather the course syllabus) wanted us to always sart from
scratch.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:57:30 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Except that these are raw, optimum figures, not seasonally adjusted as
are used today.

Trouble is that the seasonally adjusted ones are all very well, but don't
tell the true story as regards running costs. Most would expect a 100%
efficient boiler to use exactly half the amount of gas of a 50% one. But
once you introduce fiddle factors like seasonal adjustment things become
murky for the average punter trying to work out whether replacement of an
otherwise serviceable boiler is economic - and that's before the high
failure rate of expensive electronic components necessary for high
efficiency boilers is factored in.

There is a defined SEDBUK procedure which will give a better picture
but not completely accurate one for a given scenario. However, it is
the same, so that for comparison purposes between products of similar
spec. is reasonable.

Reliability is a matter of engineering design and component and
manufacturing quality. If you pay little, don't be surprised to get
crap. If you pay a lot and don't get good quality, apply boot to
supplier's backside.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

However, I'm honestly puzzled.

I thought most condensers were multi-part heat exchangers.

Nope, only naff ones.

However I
can't see how the number of parts
used to manufacture the heat
exchanger, nor whether or not it has water
on the outside, can have any
relevance to cleanliness.

A one piece heat exchanger with a top mounted burner and flue from the
bottom, will clean itself inside with condensate washing down the walls.

snipped to the relevant bits
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A one piece heat exchanger condensing boiler clean its own heat exchanger.
What does that sentence mean?
Are you foreign?

From some points of view, yes.

However, I'm honestly puzzled.

I thought most condensers were multi-part heat exchangers. However I
can't see how the number of parts used to manufacture the heat
exchanger, nor whether or not it has water on the outside, can have any
relevance to cleanliness.

Andy

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Flooding foundations has nothing to do with boiler services.

When did being on topic ever concern you?

It obviously doesn't concern you. His condition is past the point of no
return.

Since the his obviously refers to the previous quote...

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A one piece heat exchanger with a top mounted burner and flue from the
bottom, will clean itself inside with condensate washing down the walls.

So needs less servicing than an older boiler?

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trouble is that the seasonally adjusted ones are all very well, but
don't tell the true story as regards running costs. Most would expect a
100% efficient boiler to use exactly half the amount of gas of a 50%
one. But once you introduce fiddle factors like seasonal adjustment
things become murky for the average punter trying to work out whether
replacement of an otherwise serviceable boiler is economic - and that's
before the high failure rate of expensive electronic components
necessary for high efficiency boilers is factored in.

There is a defined SEDBUK procedure which will give a better picture but
not completely accurate one for a given scenario. However, it is the
same, so that for comparison purposes between products of similar spec.
is reasonable.

I'd agree with that, but simpletons like Drivel use efficiency figures to
'quote' actual gas bill reductions when replacing older boilers.

Reliability is a matter of engineering design and component and
manufacturing quality. If you pay little, don't be surprised to get
crap. If you pay a lot and don't get good quality, apply boot to
supplier's backside.

But there's far more to go wrong in an electronically controlled boiler.
To me it would make sense if the electronics were mounted some way away
from the boiler so they could be kept at a near constant temperature.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Flooding foundations has nothing to do with boiler services.

When did being on topic ever concern you?

It obviously doesn't concern you. His condition is past the point of no
return.

Since the

He is still confused. Poor soul.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A one piece heat exchanger with a top mounted burner and flue from the
bottom, will clean itself inside with condensate washing down the walls.

So needs less servicing than an older boiler?

An annual service of less intensity. Also running more efficiently for
longer.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Andy Hall who is now Matt as well wrote:
Trouble is that the seasonally adjusted ones are all very well, but
don't tell the true story as regards running costs. Most would expect a
100% efficient boiler to use exactly half the amount of gas of a 50%
one. But once you introduce fiddle factors like seasonal adjustment
things become murky for the average punter trying to work out whether
replacement of an otherwise serviceable boiler is economic - and that's
before the high failure rate of expensive electronic components
necessary for high efficiency boilers is factored in.

There is a defined SEDBUK procedure which will give a better picture but
not completely accurate one for a given scenario. However, it is the
same, so that for comparison purposes between products of similar spec.
is reasonable.

I'd agree with that,

...here is a man who doesn't know, a man who has no clue
...about the things which are known to folks like me and you

...vacant in his head
...no knoweldge, reason, logic, this must be said

...drivel and babble just comes so
...relentless, incoherrent in it flow

...it's time take no notice of this senile babbling fool
...just thank the Lord you are sane, normal and cool

Doctor Drivel wrote:

A one piece heat exchanger with a top mounted burner and flue from the
bottom, will clean itself inside with condensate washing down the walls.


I'm surprised there's that much coming out. Still, I suppose it *is* a
weak acid, which must help a bit.

Ta

Andy