Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

in 514315 20060324 081814 tarquinlinbin wrote:
Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.

These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when
I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and burned
with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed up
about 3 weeks later.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:00:37 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 514315 20060324 081814 tarquinlinbin wrote:
Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.

These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when
I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and burned
with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed up
about 3 weeks later.
Wow that does sound crude. The fore runner to the forced draught
burner perhaps?



Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Bob Martin wrote:

These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when
I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and burned
with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed up
about 3 weeks later.

Yes, mine would have come second, but I ripped it out a year or two
back. It dated was made by Powell Dufryn (?) in 1963, cast iron, one
section, the thermostat was operated by gas pressure. Still working
when I dumped it, the most complex bit was a buzzing solenoid valve. It
lit with an alarming 'whoompf' sound.

In comparison, see this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424734.400.html

On 24 Mar 2006 09:30:19 -0800, "Aidan" wrote:


Bob Martin wrote:

These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when
I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and burned
with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed up
about 3 weeks later.

Yes, mine would have come second, but I ripped it out a year or two
back. It dated was made by Powell Dufryn (?) in 1963, cast iron, one
section, the thermostat was operated by gas pressure. Still working
when I dumped it, the most complex bit was a buzzing solenoid valve. It
lit with an alarming 'whoompf' sound.

In comparison, see this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424734.400.html


This sounds like rhetoric from that guy who writes for the Telegraph.

The author has made the typical confusion between combi and condensing
boilers. One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a
journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.




--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Andy Hall wrote:

The author has made the typical confusion between combi and condensing
boilers.

He may have. I think it more likely that he meant exactly what he said;
"...........that some 40 per cent of today's energy-efficient
combination boilers break down within the first year"

I spent some time trying to steer a relative away from a combi. They're
more complex than the equivalent system boiler and just have more parts
to go wrong. The relative lives in a hard water area.


I doubt that my new boiler will last the 40 years it's predecessor
did. I'm spending a lot less on gas though.


One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a
journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.

It was a letter and I've no idea whether the author has any technical
background. It sounds quite plausible.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

I doubt that my new boiler will last the 40 years it's predecessor
did. I'm spending a lot less on gas though.

Your lucky then..
I estimate that I would save at most £5pm over what my 25 year old boiler
uses.
It will take a long time to save the cost of a new "modern" boiler.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy Hall wrote:

The author has made the typical confusion between combi and condensing
boilers.

He may have. I think it more likely that he meant exactly what he said;
"...........that some 40 per cent of today's energy-efficient
combination boilers break down within the first year"

I spent some time trying to steer a
relative away from a combi. They're
more complex than the equivalent
system boiler and just have more parts
to go wrong. The relative lives in a hard water area.

You don't know much about boilers then. A combi is a system boiler with a
water section added. Some are clearly not complex at all. Look at the link
for the Atmos I gave. It shows the innards of the heat exchanger. The DHW
is just another coil in the heat exchanger; the small red tube. It doesn't
even have a 3-way valve, acting like a multi-point. You have to know the
market and what is on offer and most of all understand the technologies
behind it.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a
journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.

I well remember the Telegraph reporting a major equipment theft from a BBC
TV Centre control room I discovered - being the first one of the crew in
that day.

They simply made up 95% of the article.

That was many years ago, but facts never got in the way of a good story
for any paper.

Of course that was years ago.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a
journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.

I well remember the Telegraph reporting a major equipment theft from a BBC
TV Centre control room I discovered - being the first one of the crew in
that day.

They simply made up 95% of the article.

That was many years ago, but facts never got in the way of a good story
for any paper.

Of course that was years ago.

Of course.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Real bread.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I well remember the Telegraph reporting a major equipment theft from a BBC
TV Centre control room I discovered - being the first one of the crew in
that day.

They simply made up 95% of the article.

That was many years ago, but facts never got in the way of a good story
for any paper.

Of course that was years ago.

Nothing changes, the Daily Mail edited a letter I wrote to them
complaining about their misreporting of the pre-announcement of VED
changes in this year's budget, removed all references to their
misreporting and incompetence and published it on their website, so
heavily cut and altered I can scarcely recognise it.

The Radio Times once published my name as a competition winner, never
gave me the prize and refused to answer any correspondence relating to
the subject.

"Horizon" misrepresented my research and refused to publish a retraction
or even an explanation.

The latest press reports on the work I do at present are so
biased/misunderstood that they are effectively worthless.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:57:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a
journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.

I well remember the Telegraph reporting a major equipment theft from a BBC
TV Centre control room I discovered - being the first one of the crew in
that day.

They simply made up 95% of the article.

That was many years ago, but facts never got in the way of a good story
for any paper.

Of course that was years ago.


Well, as long as they don't still do it, it's OK.

Talking of good stories.... I did love this one from Auntie
yesterday.. Especially the photo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4841762.stm

Better than Chirac walking out of the EU meeting.


--

..andy

The message . com
from "Aidan" contains these words:


In comparison, see this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424734.400.html

That tickled me the first time I read it 'cos I'd not long had the same
argument with someone about cars.

"The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not include
these secondary energy costs in its efficiency ratings for boilers.
Until the full life cycle is factored in - including costs to install,
service, maintain and recycle - boilers and other supposedly
energy-saving products may generate more pollution, not less."

Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep
meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping
a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I
can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

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

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "Aidan" contains these words:


In comparison, see this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424734.400.html

That tickled me the first time I read it 'cos I'd not long had the same
argument with someone about cars.

"The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not include
these secondary energy costs in its efficiency ratings for boilers.
Until the full life cycle is factored in - including costs to install,
service, maintain and recycle - boilers and other supposedly
energy-saving products may generate more pollution, not less."

Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep
meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping
a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I
can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

Modern cars are infinitely more reliable, with far less service intervals,
than older cars, especially Hondas and Toyotas.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...

I can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

They are scrapped because they are not economically viable to fix. They can
all be fixeded, but cost more to fix than what the market value is.

One of my favourite boilers is the Dutch Atmos because of the large copper
coil/aluminium heat exchanger. The controls are very simple and ultra
reliable.

They even have a no drain condensing model. They have only recently been
sold in the UK. A real quality product. Expensive but worth it.

http://www.atmos.uk.com/core_files/productDoc(109).pdf

Doctor Drivel wrote:

One of my favourite boilers is the Dutch Atmos because of the large
copper coil/aluminium heat exchanger. The controls are very simple and
ultra reliable.

Ahh right... new boiler of the month I see.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:
One of my favourite boilers is the Dutch Atmos because of the large copper
coil/aluminium heat exchanger. The controls are very simple and ultra
reliable.

They even have a no drain condensing model. They have only recently been
sold in the UK. A real quality product. Expensive but worth it.

http://www.atmos.uk.com/core_files/productDoc(109).pdf

Acid rain??

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "Aidan" contains these words:




Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep
meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping
a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I
can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

I've never been convinced of that either but am always shouted down!

Mary

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I've never been convinced of that either but am always shouted down!

Were you the Mary Fisher on Feedback today?

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

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "Aidan" contains these words:




Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep
meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping
a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I
can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

I've never been convinced of that either but am always shouted down!

And what superhuman could manage that ?

--
geoff

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "Aidan" contains these words:




Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep
meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping
a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I
can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're
less efficient.

I've never been convinced of that either but am always shouted down!

She's an AntiCapitalist!
Burn her!

There are a number of ways you can guess the life cycle carbon emissions
for a car.
One obvious minimum is to neglect the cost of materials of the car
totally.
For a 7000 pound car, it's obvious that the basic cost is maybe 5000
pounds.
If we assume all the cost is labour - and it pretty much is, somewhere
along the lines, and the average wage is 5 pounds an hour, then that's
1000 hours of time, or about a month.

In the UK, per capita emission is ~10 tons.
So, call it 1 ton of carbon.
If it does 50g/Km better than the car it's replacing, then that's
20Km/Kg, or 20000Km/ton.

What's worst case?
Well, if that 5000 is LPG, then a ton costs ~300 pounds, and contains
maybe 900Kg of carbon, for a total of 15 tons.

Or 200000Km.

It's clear that it must be somewhere in the middle.
But, 200000Km is 25000 miles for 5 years, or a 20 mile commute.

So, even at the impossibly high end, it's worthwhile for often used
cars.

For low mileage ones, it's nowhere near as clear.

"Aidan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Martin wrote:

These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when
I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and
burned
with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed
up
about 3 weeks later.

Yes, mine would have come second, but I ripped it out a year or two
back. It dated was made by Powell Dufryn (?) in 1963, cast iron, one
section, the thermostat was operated by gas pressure. Still working
when I dumped it, the most complex bit was a buzzing solenoid valve. It
lit with an alarming 'whoompf' sound.

In comparison, see this;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424734.400.html

Total tripe.

"Take one example. A survey of gas installers that I and colleagues
conducted in the Nottingham area revealed that some 40 per cent of today's
energy-efficient combination boilers break down within the first year, and
ongoing repair and service costs can average £160 per year. Boiler lifespans
are down to only three years in some cases."

He and his colleagues carried out? 3 years? Get a life!! Only in the
Torygraph!
"The energy expended in repairs, manufacturing of parts, distribution
networks and so on may soon outstrip the working energy saved by the
new-style boilers - if it hasn't already. As a result, a so-called
energy-saving boiler may use more energy and be more polluting than a simple
old-style boiler with manual pilot light and cast-iron components."

More total ********.

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...

I thought it was me ...

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...

I thought it was me ...

Mary


I was about to make that point and claim my £5..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...

I thought it was me ...

Mary
I was about to make that point and claim my £5..

I knew somebody would, that's why I got in first!

I'll spend the£5 for you :-)

Mary

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...

Non of yer new fangled condensing
malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

Yep, I used to work on them. A tube of neatsfoot oil for the leather
diaphragm on the relay valve cured any gas leaks and made it run smoother.
They were purely non-electric controls with weep pipes going to the boiler
'stat, room 'stat and mechanical clock too. Some had modulating burners, in
that the stats were gradual acting and would slowly close or remain stable.
In doing so the relay valve would move up and down reducing the gas to the
burner, modulating the burner. It took many years to get modulation with
electric controls. There were some kits available to replace the leather
diaphragms with neoprene in the valves. They were very reliable, more
reliable than the electric controls. They were simple...once you understood
them. The average plumber would run a mile from them.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.

tarquinlinbin wrote:

Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.

I assume theyre trying to soften customers up for a new boiler. Putting
a 17 yr old boiler in there is simply daft.

And they dont seem to have done their research too good, I could have
pointed them to a 1930s boiler still in use, and I'm not in the trade.
Mind you I suspect people still running ancients are in no rush to draw
attention ot the fact.


NT

wrote:
tarquinlinbin wrote:


Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay
valve and weepline stat on one of them!.

http://www.oldestboiler.co.uk/

view the pdf book.


I assume theyre trying to soften customers up for a new boiler. Putting
a 17 yr old boiler in there is simply daft.

And they dont seem to have done their research too good, I could have
pointed them to a 1930s boiler still in use, and I'm not in the trade.
Mind you I suspect people still running ancients are in no rush to draw
attention ot the fact.


If I were to sign up to a contract from Powergen, they would take my
money in a hurry, say my 30 yr+ Glowworm couldn't be repaired at the
first hint of a problem, then charge £2000+ to install a completely new
but unreliable one.
Granted that the new one is more energy efficient, it could take 10yrs
to recoupe the outlay, after allowing for an essential service contract
in the meantime.
So until the old boiler becomes unrepairable, or I move house, it is
definitely staying there.

john2

"john2" wrote in message
...

If I were to sign up to a contract from Powergen, they would take my money
in a hurry, say my 30 yr+ Glowworm couldn't be repaired at the first hint
of a problem, then charge £2000+ to install a completely new but
unreliable one.

You get what you pay for. Fit a cheap and nasty boiler and it is
unreliable. Fit a Glow Worm condenser (Vaillant made in Holland), Vaillant
(made in Holland and Germany), Viessmann (Germany), Atmos (Holland), ACV
(Belgium), Eco-Hometec (Germany), Quantum (England)etc and they last and
last and rarely go wrong. If you buy a Ladas of the boilers then don't
complain.

Granted that the new one is more energy efficient, it could take 10yrs to
recoupe the outlay, after allowing for an essential service contract in
the meantime.

10 years? As they drop your bills by 30-40% that will be quite quick, and
as fuel keeps rising, quicker than you think.

So until the old boiler becomes unrepairable, or I move house, it is
definitely staying there.

A foolish view.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"john2" wrote in message
...

If I were to sign up to a contract from Powergen, they would take my
money in a hurry, say my 30 yr+ Glowworm couldn't be repaired at the
first hint of a problem, then charge £2000+ to install a completely
new but unreliable one.


You get what you pay for. Fit a cheap and nasty boiler and it is
unreliable. Fit a Glow Worm condenser (Vaillant made in Holland),
Vaillant (made in Holland and Germany), Viessmann (Germany), Atmos
(Holland), ACV (Belgium), Eco-Hometec (Germany), Quantum (England)etc
and they last and last and rarely go wrong. If you buy a Ladas of the
boilers then don't complain.

Granted that the new one is more energy efficient, it could take 10yrs
to recoupe the outlay, after allowing for an essential service
contract in the meantime.


10 years? As they drop your bills by 30-40% that will be quite quick,
and as fuel keeps rising, quicker than you think.

So until the old boiler becomes unrepairable, or I move house, it is
definitely staying there.


A foolish view.

I'll remember the good quality ones for when mine finally gives out.

john2

john2 wrote:

If I were to sign up to a contract from Powergen, they would take my
money in a hurry, say my 30 yr+ Glowworm couldn't be repaired at the
first hint of a problem, then charge £2000+ to install a completely new
but unreliable one.
Granted that the new one is more energy efficient, it could take 10yrs
to recoupe the outlay, after allowing for an essential service contract
in the meantime.
So until the old boiler becomes unrepairable, or I move house, it is
definitely staying there.

john2

A maintenance contract is essential?? Recently had a leaflet offering a
boiler only maintenance policy for £12 pcm = £144 pa = £3600 overa
25 year £1000 boiler life. Only the mathematically challenged would
take that up.


NT