On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:16:57 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS"
wrote:

I'm new to these groups. And I think I "top post." That is, add my comments
above the text that inspired my response in the first place. From my
perspective (using MS Outlook) it makes it easier to follow the threads
reading the top thread and clicking on the various responses if the
respondents "top post."

If they post under a copy of the original, I have to read it again scrolling
down to find the response. Not the easiest approach (again, from my
perspective).

And, I suspect I am an A.S.S. (American Senile Sitizen)

Enjoy

You seem reasonable, so I suppose I could try to explain all the
things you haven't considered. But the subject has already been beaten
to death. Since you're new, you might want to set aside a few months
to read all about it in the archives. :-) Or save yourself some time
and consider this: it's the Solar Flare's (AKA Gymmy Bob and John P
Bengi) favorite subject, and he's an intractable nitwit top poster.
That ought to be enough to scare any sensible person into bottom
posting.

Wayne

Yup. Lots of snow = no frost in the ground.

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message news:u3u5e3-
Snow's a smaller problem than cold. In fact, we don't get much snow
when it
gets really cold.
--
derek

Don't be a complete ****head. It doesn't matter what YOU think is a
convention, it is an obsolete stupid idea.

If your browser cannot support different styles get one that can the
way you like it or stop whining about it.

Many group top post completely and more are following suit because of
the ridiculousness of some old paradigms.

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:

ditto.

Cutting off the text below the signature is ***YOUR*** browser's
problem. Don't blame others for it.

Don't be an ass. It's a recognized convention that "-- " indicates
end-of-text, and _most_ newsreaders truncate everything after that
to avoid
everybody forwarding all the unnecessary .sigs. It's really simple
to just
ensure that, if you must top post, you don't supply a .sig beginning
with
"-- "
--
derek

Welcome to the 90s. Which text was yours now and why isn't it with
your header identifying it?
....and I did not post all that text regardless of what your post said.

Did you know that Usenet convention say that more than 3 lines of
signature is considered rude and spamming or advertising?

"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:03:05 -0500
"Solar Flare" wrote:

I personally find that most people disregard bottom posts at all if
they are long and not really hot topics.

Why is it that top posters think the alternative is bottom
posting and in either case quoting the whole original. Doesn't anyone
read
RFCs anymore ?

The effort is too high to scroll to the bottom of the post and then
back up to find the first text that isn't indented and has a ID/header
of the poster somewhere at the top end of the post.

The idea is to quote enough material and only that much to
establish context and reply beneath the quted material in interleaved
style. There is no need to scroll to the bottom of the post.

What a stupid system bottom posting was before threading browsers.

Quoting the entire message and putting a response at either end is
stupid. The normal USENET convention predates browsers by more than a
decade.

--
C:WIN | Directable Mirror
Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus
the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available
see
|
http://www.sohara.org/

Trimming is a prerequisite for bottom posting.

I find people that interlace post usually have too much to say.

I think everybody has established many times that the content is what
is important. If you don't want many to read your post then bottom
post.


"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:11:33 -0500 someone who may be Steve Spence
wrote this:-

top or bottom posting has nothing to do with content interest.

In my experience it does.

What I hate is scrolling through three pages of reposted
material

Indeed. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether
someone posts their reply at the top or the bottom. Rather it
depends on whether the poster is polite enough to trim unnecessary
material.

I also find those that don't trim generally have little interesting
to say.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP
prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

If anybody wants to reread the past posts they can scroll back to get
complete details.

If you have trouble with that perhaps you should stick to the groups
topic... alt.energy.homepower.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , daestrom

Cold showers and warm beer

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


You're British and you don't have COLD baths and showers???

You must be from the s**th!

Mary

advertising spam snipped

wrote:
daestrom wrote:
wrote in message

... I've been thinking drainBACK, as in "the water drains back when the
pump stops, by gravity, with no valve."

Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'.

Au contraire. It will, with a collector above an unpressurized tank with
the ends of the supply and return pipes underwater and a small hole above
the water line. This would need less pumping energy than a system with
the return pipe above the water line. Neither needs a vent at the top,
if plumbed with all pipes downhill.

Nick

yes, thats what I had in mind. Perhaps I should have said drainback
rather than draindown, though I'm not sure about that one.



Derek Broughton wrote:

Why does he think there is a risk of incompetent engineering in one
system but not another?

Valves fail. It's not incompetent engineering.

If a system design depends for its survival on a component that will
fail, then yes it is incompetent enginering.


In a glycol-loop system, even if the pump breaks down there's no risk of
flooding. Even if it gets cold enough to freeze the glycol (!!) you have
at most a few gallons of it in the loop.

If the collector gets cold enough to freeze in a draindown system, that
collector will have been empty for hours.


So far, all you've told me about
drain-down systems is that they're safe. Convince me

why? (thats not exactly what I said anyway).


NT

Doctor Drivel wrote:
wrote in message
...
daestrom wrote:

Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'.

Au contraire. It will, with a collector above an unpressurized tank with
the ends of the supply and return pipes underwater and a small hole above
the water line. This would need less pumping energy than a system with
the return pipe above the water line. Neither needs a vent at the top,
if plumbed with all pipes downhill.

You have to maintain the water level in the tank, otherwise no drain down.
The air hole in the pipe needs to be exposed when the pump is operating. If
the water level is too high then no drain down. Some sort of level
maintaining mechanism needs to be installed, such as a ballcock valve and
float. Then if this fails an overflow is needed. This is self regulating,
but you can do it by making a level line and using a hose pipe I suppose.

simpler to have the vent hole above the top of the tank. Add a sleeve
to prevent splash possibility.


NT

Derek Broughton wrote:

There is no such thing as zero risk. It's OK for you to not worry about
freezing. We just had two weeks at -10C and lower.

At no time have I stated that there is no need to worry about freezing.
Its quite obvious that a solarthermal system in Britain will need to be
safe in freezing conditions.


I'm not risking
exposing water pipes to that.

Lots of people round the country expose hosepipes to subzero temps day
in day out. Does this make them burst? No, because theyre not full of
water.


The idea of a draindown system is to _not_
permit that - but how do you guarantee that it's always sufficiently
drained?

by designing the system so it drains itself when the pump stops. As
long as its partly drained, all is well. The expansion of water on
freezing can be accomodated by a small percentage of air in the pipe.
With draindowns they are almost completely empty every time the pump
stops. Its how they work.

I could install a drain-down system, but (a) I'm not confident I won't have
a flood, (b) nobody in this area will sell or service them (because _they_
aren't confident, either), and (c) I'm _definitely_ not confident that _I_
could build, or even install one, that would be low-risk. otoh, I can get
a glycol-loop system, built locally, installed professionally, with proven
reliability - and still save money over heating water with propane.

Its not because theyre not confident, but thats another story.


NT

Alan wrote:

It seems to me that the glycol/heat exchanger system has a lot more
cost and risks than the simple drain-back system described. For one,
the heat exchanger will cost several hundred dollars itself, although
it depends upon the heat storage tank being used. I believe a
drainback can also be the heat storage tank. For another, it will not
be as efficient as directly pumping the water--the exchanger will lose
some of the heat, putting it into the ambient temperature of the room
if it's a closet install. Then, the extra equipment involved means
more things will go wrong generally.

The piping and exchanger are at risk of leaks in a glycol loop. If a
leak hapens, the glycol will be replaced by plain water, and the system
will soldier on as before until it freezes and bursts. I suggest that
this is as much or a greater risk than aproperly designed drainback
system bursting through freezing when full of static water.

Direct systems are sometimes criticised on the grounds that dirtying of
collector piping by fresh water results in reduction of efficiency over
the years. With a glycol system this coating is merely moved from
collector piping to heat exchanger, and the same effect occurs.


NT

Rob Dekker wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how do you get away paying only 20 UK pounds/year?
Is this gas powered ? Or wood from the yard ?
Don't you shower or wash dishes/clothes ?
That's like 4 m^2/month. I use that in a day or two for DHW.

Rob

When are folks going to wake up and notice the £20 was a solar system
saving figure, not an annual HW spend figure. It was from a thread a
couple of months ago talking about a study of commercial systems. I did
go to get a link but wasnt willing to wade through another 100 posts
to find it.


NT

Rob Dekker wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how do you get away paying only 20 UK pounds/year ?
Is this gas powered ? Or wood from the yard ?
Don't you shower or wash dishes/clothes ?
That's like 4 m^2/month. I use that in a day or two for DHW.

Rob

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

NT

So it used to be the "White and blue"? and now it is the "grey and the
blue"?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how do you get away paying only 20 UK
pounds/year ?
Is this gas powered ? Or wood from the yard ?
Don't you shower or wash dishes/clothes ?
That's like 4 m^2/month. I use that in a day or two for DHW.

Rob

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

NT

Nope. I'm a top poster and wish all of you were. Its just much easier for me
to read top of posts in my outlook. These posts are a temporal thing. You
read the first post, then read the Reponses one after the other in the order
they arrived. You already read the "subject post" or "original," and are
looking to read the replies/responses. Why would you want to have to re-read
the original question/post before being able to read each response?

Now you bottom feeders may be using some other mail reader. And maybe you
can recommend one better suited to the task than Outlook. But, as I said,
from this perspective it seems everyone should change and do it (respond) my
way.

============================================
"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:16:57 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS"
wrote:

I'm new to these groups. And I think I "top post." That is, add my
comments
above the text that inspired my response in the first place. From my
perspective (using MS Outlook) it makes it easier to follow the threads
reading the top thread and clicking on the various responses if the
respondents "top post."

If they post under a copy of the original, I have to read it again
scrolling
down to find the response. Not the easiest approach (again, from my
perspective).

And, I suspect I am an A.S.S. (American Senile Sitizen)

Enjoy

You seem reasonable, so I suppose I could try to explain all the
things you haven't considered. But the subject has already been beaten
to death. Since you're new, you might want to set aside a few months
to read all about it in the archives. :-) Or save yourself some time
and consider this: it's the Solar Flare's (AKA Gymmy Bob and John P
Bengi) favorite subject, and he's an intractable nitwit top poster.
That ought to be enough to scare any sensible person into bottom
posting.

Wayne

Now they are going to tell you that you're stupid because you don't
use their brand of browser..

hahahahahahahahhahahaha

so predictable from the neurotic ones.

oh look! Your header is with your text too!!! What a concept! So is
numb nuts header.

Have a great one!

"Gooey TARBALLS" wrote in message
news:1g6Qf.29262$G%2.7859@trnddc07...
Nope. I'm a top poster and wish all of you were. Its just much
easier for me
to read top of posts in my outlook. These posts are a temporal
thing. You
read the first post, then read the Reponses one after the other in
the order
they arrived. You already read the "subject post" or "original," and
are
looking to read the replies/responses. Why would you want to have to
re-read
the original question/post before being able to read each response?

Now you bottom feeders may be using some other mail reader. And
maybe you
can recommend one better suited to the task than Outlook. But, as I
said,
from this perspective it seems everyone should change and do it
(respond) my
way.

============================================
"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:16:57 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS"
wrote:

I'm new to these groups. And I think I "top post." That is, add my
comments
above the text that inspired my response in the first place. From
my
perspective (using MS Outlook) it makes it easier to follow the
threads
reading the top thread and clicking on the various responses if
the
respondents "top post."

If they post under a copy of the original, I have to read it again
scrolling
down to find the response. Not the easiest approach (again, from
my
perspective).

And, I suspect I am an A.S.S. (American Senile Sitizen)

Enjoy

You seem reasonable, so I suppose I could try to explain all the
things you haven't considered. But the subject has already been
beaten
to death. Since you're new, you might want to set aside a few
months
to read all about it in the archives. :-) Or save yourself some
time
and consider this: it's the Solar Flare's (AKA Gymmy Bob and John
P
Bengi) favorite subject, and he's an intractable nitwit top
poster.
That ought to be enough to scare any sensible person into bottom
posting.

Wayne

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:52:33 -0500
"Solar Flare" wrote:

Welcome to the 90s. Which text was yours now and why isn't it with
your header identifying it?

Hard to tell some moron stripped the conventional quote marks
while leaving the attributions.

Did you know that Usenet convention say that more than 3 lines of
signature is considered rude and spamming or advertising?

4 lines - read the RFCs.

--
C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/

The message Zz3Qf.6150$sp4.4886@trnddc01
from "Gooey TARBALLS" contains these words:

I'm new to these groups. And I think I "top post."

Thing is - I've no idea to what you're referring unless I first read the
bottom of the page - which is counter to how most people read English.

eg.

Because it goes counter to the flow of how English is read.

Why is top-posting bad?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

In article Zz3Qf.6150$sp4.4886@trnddc01, Gooey TARBALLS
wrote:

And, I suspect I am an A.S.S. (American Senile Sitizen)

Possibly, but a troll certainly. Even an American can't
really be that stupid.

--
AJL

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:22:35 +0000 someone who may be AJH
wrote this:-

Yes this was my assumption, the water header being sufficient cross
section, and within the insulated area of the house, that once the
pump stopped it just filled up a bit. The only drawback I could see
was that the pump would always work against the head from the header
tank up to the panels. In a sealed system the pump only circulates
against the friction in the system.

http://www.imaginationsolar.com/PDFs...ainback_v1.pdf
shows the unit promoted by one supplier. In addition to this box
there is just the panel, cylinder and some piping/wiring.

The drainback system does depend on the valve working, just like
human life depends on valves in the heart working. I suspect that
the valve in the unit is chosen to have a very large number of
working cycles, as it will be operating a minimum of once a day and
so the possibility of it failing and the panel to freezing is remote
enough to be placed with the other remote possibilities, like the
panel being hit by a meteorite.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:49:31 -0500 someone who may be "Solar Flare"
wrote this:-

Don't be a complete ****head.

Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

It doesn't matter what YOU think is a convention,

Perhaps not.

it is an obsolete stupid idea.

That may be what you think, others disagree. So it appears that
everyone must do what you think. Fascinating.

If your browser

Why use a browser to read newsgroups?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 9 Mar 2006 19:10:56 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

When are folks going to wake up and notice the £20 was a solar system
saving figure, not an annual HW spend figure.

Some people did notice that it was a saving figure. In fact I
suspect that everyone noticed it.

However, several people thought it was a very low figure.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Gooey TARBALLS wrote:

Nope. I'm a top poster and wish all of you were. Its just much easier for me
to read top of posts in my outlook. These posts are a temporal thing. You
read the first post, then read the Reponses one after the other in the order
they arrived. You already read the "subject post" or "original," and are
looking to read the replies/responses. Why would you want to have to re-read
the original question/post before being able to read each response?

Where are these responses that you talk about? Are you talking
about separate posts in a newsgroup, or are you talking about
having an entire thread from the very beginning all contained in
one post? That is a very bad thing, please don't do it.

Did you know that all these posts are archived by Google and
elsewhere? Before someone asks a question for the umpteenth time,
they should check the archive first and not waste everyone's time.

If you and others never snip anything, the amount that has to be
archived is much greater.
What you should do is to leave a few lines of the bit that you
are replying to (including the person's name) at the top, then
put your response.
This will all be on the first page, so that nobody has to scroll
down to begin reading your response.
The post that you are replying to may not still exist on servers,
or may mot yet have arrived for everyone else, so a post should
be understandable by itself.

Now you bottom feeders may be using some other mail reader. And maybe you
can recommend one better suited to the task than Outlook. But, as I said,
from this perspective it seems everyone should change and do it (respond) my
way.

No the newsreader has nothing to do with top or bottom posting.
You should SNIP OUT EVERYTHING that you are not replying to, and
reply after the bit that you are replying to.
Just like I have done here.

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 21:39:08 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Unfortunately most homes here don't have basements, as they do in the USA,
so difficult to locate in a house. I see they have just brought out a batch
processing unit that can be located anywhere, so clawing back bathwater is
possible not just shower water. They use a controller and pump, so more
complicated. As my 4 year girl likes splashing about in a bath.

Oh my god there's a whole new generation of them on the way!

Do you both use "my first hacksaw" to practice plumbing?

Have you checked the MSDS to see if Boss White is really safe to have
around children?

Have you been blaming your past plumbing efforts on nappy leaks?

I suppose you replaced her dreams of "My Little Pony" with "My First
Combi" (on both her birthday and at Christmas just in case one goes
wrong)

Do your bedtime stories to her concentrate on Rinnai hot water heaters
suitable for outdoor fitting ?


--

"AJH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:16:57 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS"
wrote:

I'm new to these groups.

Is that Jeff hiding in there?
If so you know I'm happy to answer your questions but cut the
extraneous text from your quotes, killfiles are so one can avoid
filling ones screen and hardrive with clutter and this includes people
who quote reams of irrelevant text. On usenet (these groups) I tend to
kill on people who quote complete previous messages, for my
convenience and no other reason.

AJH

What about people, like you, who crosspost?

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

That may be what you think, others disagree. So it appears that
everyone must do what you think. Fascinating.

There are loads of people that top post.
They tolerate the bottom posters.
Its a shame that there are a few bottom posters with no tolerance.

Neither is actually definitively the correct way as it depends on what is
being posted which way is best IMO.
Its usually the third way which is to post in with the quoted test.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how do you get away paying only 20 UK pounds/year
?
Is this gas powered ? Or wood from the yard ?
Don't you shower or wash dishes/clothes ?
That's like 4 m^2/month. I use that in a day or two for DHW.

Rob

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

Most of them do.
There aren't many cold feed only machines in Currys.

Dishwashers are almost invariably cold fill.

David Hansen wrote:

http://www.imaginationsolar.com/PDFs...ainback_v1.pdf shows the unit promoted by one supplier...

The drainback system does depend on the valve working...

Sounds like a drainDOWN system. DrainBACK systems have no valves.

Nick

wrote in message
oups.com...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
wrote in message
...
daestrom wrote:

Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'.

Au contraire. It will, with a collector above an unpressurized tank
with
the ends of the supply and return pipes underwater and a small hole
above
the water line. This would need less pumping energy than a system with
the return pipe above the water line. Neither needs a vent at the top,
if plumbed with all pipes downhill.

You have to maintain the water level in the tank, otherwise no drain
down.
The air hole in the pipe needs to be exposed when the pump is operating.
If
the water level is too high then no drain down. Some sort of level
maintaining mechanism needs to be installed, such as a ballcock valve and
float. Then if this fails an overflow is needed. This is self
regulating,
but you can do it by making a level line and using a hose pipe I suppose.

simpler to have the vent hole above the top of the tank. Add a sleeve
to prevent splash possibility.

It has to be "in" the tank. The pump will squirt water everywhere. Best to
have say 15mm into the tank, then immediately up to 28mm (1"). This pipe
drops into the tank water. In this section have a 28mmx15mmx28mm tee, then
the water will just drop down the larger bore and not squirt out of the side
of the 15mm port in the tee. You could put an isolator on the end of the
15mm so that you can turn up or down to keep water going down the 28mm
route, or have a 15mm elbow and a short piece of pipe pointing upwards.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Derek Broughton wrote:

There is no such thing as zero risk. It's OK for you to not worry about
freezing. We just had two weeks at -10C and lower.

At no time have I stated that there is no need to worry about freezing.
Its quite obvious that a solarthermal system in Britain will need to be
safe in freezing conditions.


I'm not risking
exposing water pipes to that.

Lots of people round the country expose
hosepipes to subzero temps day
in day out. Does this make them burst?
No, because theyre not full of water.

Mine is. It is on a reel on the wall. It does freeze up, but the hose
expands so no problem.

The idea of a draindown system is to _not_
permit that - but how do you guarantee
that it's always sufficiently drained?

by designing the system so it drains itself when the pump stops. As
long as its partly drained, all is well. The expansion of water on
freezing can be accomodated by a small percentage of air in the pipe.
With draindowns they are almost completely empty every time the pump
stops. Its how they work.

I could install a drain-down system, but (a) I'm not confident I won't
have
a flood, (b) nobody in this area will sell or service them (because
_they_
aren't confident, either), and (c) I'm _definitely_ not confident that
_I_
could build, or even install one, that would be low-risk. otoh, I can
get
a glycol-loop system, built locally, installed professionally, with
proven
reliability - and still save money over heating water with propane.

Its not because theyre not confident, but thats another story.


NT

wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Dekker wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how do you get away paying only 20 UK pounds/year
?
Is this gas powered ? Or wood from the yard ?
Don't you shower or wash dishes/clothes ?
That's like 4 m^2/month. I use that in a day or two for DHW.

Rob

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

Some do. Mine does and it is pretty new. Dishwashers now are cold fill only
as they now use more advanced detergents. In yea olden dayes the dishwasher
was a large tray of water with powder like sand. It sand blasted the dishes
clean, hence why you could not put patterned plates in the things. They use
a hell of a lot less water now, so heating up via electricity is viable.
Also, some dishwashers can be just a hot fill. This saves on electricity to
heat up (electricity is ~4 times more per kW than gas), but it uses hot
water for the rinse cycles. Even so it is still cheaper overall using the
hot only fill.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

That may be what you think, others disagree. So it appears that
everyone must do what you think. Fascinating.

There are loads of people that top post.
They tolerate the bottom posters.

Will you stop all this garbage. The convention of Usenet is bottom posting
FULL STOP. Do it or don't use it. I killfile persistent top posters as
they screw up threads. If everyone else did the same they would come around
to the majority as they would be talking to themselves.....or they would
**** off.

"Solar Flare" wrote in message
.. .
Cold showers and warm beer

Why freeze the flavour of good British beer?

Of course, I don't know what you drink ... it might need the flavour (if
any) chilling out :-)

The message .com
from contains these words:

Lots of people round the country expose hosepipes to subzero temps day
in day out. Does this make them burst? No, because theyre not full of
water.

Even those that are don't burst 'cos they're sufficiently elastic.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

That may be what you think, others disagree. So it appears that
everyone must do what you think. Fascinating.

There are loads of people that top post.
They tolerate the bottom posters.

Will you stop all this garbage. The convention of Usenet is bottom
posting FULL STOP. Do it or don't use it. I killfile persistent top
posters as they screw up threads. If everyone else did the same they would
come around to the majority as they would be talking to themselves.....or
they would **** off.
The problem with your advice is that you actually are not the majority
anymore. Further the people like you that tend to get so worked up over the
issue seem to add very little content to any discussion except the one about
top vs. bottom posting. I and many others don't really care whether you top
or bottom post. I find it easiest to top post, better to post in-line, and
only bottom post to groups that seem to have that as the norm. No matter
which way I post, I try and make the content the most important thing. So
far from what I have seen you have ignored the content just to focus on
which way a person posts. That seems very silly to me.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

Some do. Mine does and it is pretty new.

Mine certainly does.

The trouble is they draw water from hot /and/ cold when hot is required
- for two reasons. 1) There may be no hot water connected 2) The hot
water may be too hot.

I've throttled the cold supply right back on mine so it fills
preferrentially from the hot supply 'cos I know there's always hot
water. One day I might play with the innards and a relay or two such
that when /both/ valves are intended to be on, only the hot supply is
opened, and when only one of the other is on things are as expected.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

PS maybe 'mericans arent familiar with the fact that British washing
machines dont use a hot water feed.

Some do. Mine does and it is pretty new.

Mine certainly does.

The trouble is they draw water from hot /and/ cold when hot is required
- for two reasons. 1) There may be no hot water connected 2) The hot
water may be too hot.

I've throttled the cold supply right back on mine so it fills
preferrentially from the hot supply 'cos I know there's always hot
water. One day I might play with the innards and a relay or two such
that when /both/ valves are intended to be on, only the hot supply is
opened, and when only one of the other is on things are as expected.

Yep. The controls are designed for the worst case example.

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

That may be what you think, others disagree. So it appears that
everyone must do what you think. Fascinating.

There are loads of people that top post.
They tolerate the bottom posters.

Will you stop all this garbage. The convention of Usenet is bottom
posting FULL STOP. Do it or don't use it. I killfile persistent top
posters as they screw up threads. If everyone else did the same they
would come around to the majority as they would be talking to
themselves.....or they would **** off.

The problem with your advice is that you actually are not the majority
anymore.

On these groups I certainly am in the majority.

I find it easiest to top post, better to post in-line, and only bottom
post to groups that seem to have that as the norm.

So you use intelligence. If all top post you follow, if all bottom post you
follow. But some dickheads are told of their unconformity and still ignore
the majority and screw up threads. These should all be killfiled by the
group users, then they will **** off.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:54:57 +0000 someone who may be AJH
wrote this:-

Thanks I was considering a more simple open vented system. In general
I have a preference for sealed systems

In general I have a preference for open vented systems, in small
installations. In such installations the advantages of a "sealed"
system largely fall to the installer and maintainer. The occupier
gains little with such systems, in many/most cases. Large
installations (I have been responsible for some very large heating
systems) are a different matter.

However, for solar water heating the disadvantages of an open vented
system include the trouble of placing the header tank high enough,
then maintaining it and the inability to heat water above 100C. In
this case I think the advantage lies with a "sealed" system.

Once the option for sealed
system is taken I can see little advantage in drainback over a glycol
or food grade antifreeze system.

The system at http://www.imaginationsolar.com/system.htm has a
number of advantages. One of these is that it does not use mains
electricity, which can exterminate 20% of the savings gained by
using solar hot water heating [1]. The control system is very
simple, if the sun is shining it pumps water into the panel and
starts warming up the cylinder. If the sun is not shining, or there
is snow on the PV panel, then the pump is not running and the panel
is drained of water.

The system at http://www.navitron.org.uk/solar_collector_panel.htm
is more sophisticated and so will extract more heat from the sun. On
the other hand it needs mains electricity 24 hours a day, because
the controller might need to turn on the pump occasionally to warm
up the panel header a bit on cold nights (assuming it is run without
anti-freeze). Mains failure means possible freezing in winter and
overheating in summer, though these are rare in most of the UK.

The system at http://www.solartwin.com/easy_to_plumb_in.htm involves
much less plumbing, so is easy to fit and has simple PV powered
controls. Provided that the existing hot water cylinder is well
insulated and of an adequate size this has great advantages.

These are just three possibilities, but they do show a range of
possible solutions in one small part of the world.

[1] - "Side by Side Testing of Eight Solar Water Heating Systems"
DTI/Pub URN 01/1292
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewab...bs_solar.shtml



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:51:57 -0000 someone who may be "Doctor
Drivel" wrote this:-

Also, some dishwashers can be just a hot fill. This saves on electricity to
heat up (electricity is ~4 times more per kW than gas), but it uses hot
water for the rinse cycles. Even so it is still cheaper overall using the
hot only fill.

And it is even cheaper to use hot fill if the water has been heated
"free" by a solar panel.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54