I am on the point of deciding on a new hot water cylinder and I am now
wondering about getting a "Superduty" cylinder - a cylinder with instead of
a primary coil of one tube, a cylinder having a coil with four smaller tubes
and hence greater surface area to transfer heat. Now the idea is to improve
efficiency by reducing cycling and also reducing the temperature of the
return flow and promote condensing.

" The installation of a Superduty will reduce boiler
operating times and cycling periods resulting in
savings of up to 40% compared with systems using conventional indirect
cylinders."

40% is I am sure BS but is a decent efficiency saving likely?

And before anyone suggests it - no I f***ing well do not want a combi.

H

"HLAH" wrote in message
...
I am on the point of deciding on a new hot water cylinder and I am now
wondering about getting a "Superduty" cylinder - a cylinder with instead of
a primary coil of one tube, a cylinder having a coil with four smaller
tubes and hence greater surface area to transfer heat. Now the idea is to
improve efficiency by reducing cycling and also reducing the temperature of
the return flow and promote condensing.

" The installation of a Superduty will reduce boiler
operating times and cycling periods resulting in
savings of up to 40% compared with systems using conventional indirect
cylinders."

40% is I am sure BS but is a decent efficiency saving likely?

40% is about right. Check if the figures were pre-Part L. If pre-Part L,
then 40% is right. Then it will be about 33% compared to a Part L. You can
also downsize the cylinder too.

And before anyone suggests it - no I f***ing well do not want a combi.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models now.

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...
I am on the point of deciding on a new hot water cylinder and I am now
wondering about getting a "Superduty" cylinder - a cylinder with instead
of a primary coil of one tube, a cylinder having a coil with four smaller
tubes and hence greater surface area to transfer heat. Now the idea is to
improve efficiency by reducing cycling and also reducing the temperature
of the return flow and promote condensing.

" The installation of a Superduty will reduce boiler
operating times and cycling periods resulting in
savings of up to 40% compared with systems using conventional indirect
cylinders."

40% is I am sure BS but is a decent efficiency saving likely?

40% is about right. Check if the figures were pre-Part L. If pre-Part L,
then 40% is right. Then it will be about 33% compared to a Part L. You
can also downsize the cylinder too.


Cheers for that it seems a worthwhile small extra investment then.

And before anyone suggests it - no I f***ing well do not want a combi.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

H

"HLAH" wrote
..

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months, the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they include
the hot water generating "combi" element.

Phil

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months, the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes for a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models
now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months, the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes for a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--

These are exactly the reasons why I don't want a combi. Everyone I know who
has been sold one on the basis of the benefits has been dissapointed. Mainly
because of dissapointing flow.

The mains pressure here is around 1 Bar and I suspect sometimes less when
it's been dry for a while and everyone is watering their gardens. Not being
able to have a power shower without difficulty is not acceptable as far as I
am concerned.

Also I neglected to mention we are planning a solar installation so a big
storage cylinder seems like a very good idea to improve the efficiency and
reduce the payback time.

H

HLAH wrote:

I am on the point of deciding on a new hot water cylinder and I am now
wondering about getting a "Superduty" cylinder - a cylinder with instead of
a primary coil of one tube, a cylinder having a coil with four smaller tubes
and hence greater surface area to transfer heat. Now the idea is to improve
efficiency by reducing cycling and also reducing the temperature of the
return flow and promote condensing.

" The installation of a Superduty will reduce boiler
operating times and cycling periods resulting in
savings of up to 40% compared with systems using conventional indirect
cylinders."

40% is I am sure BS but is a decent efficiency saving likely?

All in all, it should be well worth having the faster cylinder -
especially if you have a condensing boiler to heat it. However be
careful about what you expect to "save" here. It going to be mostly time
rather than energy. A given mass of water will still take the same
amount of energy to raise its temperature. Also a modern boiler will
modulate to match the actual heat extraction rate of the coil in the
cylinder - which will go a long way to reducing much cycling on even a
relatively "slow" cylinder (reducing the cycling *does* reduce the fuel
used a little).



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
All in all, it should be well worth having the faster cylinder -
especially if you have a condensing boiler to heat it. However be
careful about what you expect to "save" here. It going to be mostly time
rather than energy. A given mass of water will still take the same
amount of energy to raise its temperature. Also a modern boiler will
modulate to match the actual heat extraction rate of the coil in the
cylinder - which will go a long way to reducing much cycling on even a
relatively "slow" cylinder (reducing the cycling *does* reduce the fuel
used a little).

Sort of my thoughts. Unless you have an ancient system with a boiler than
cycles continuously 40% saving is pie in the sky.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models
now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months, the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes for
a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many
parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--

These are exactly the reasons why I don't want a combi.

But that was tripe.

Everyone I know who has been sold one on the basis of the benefits has
been dissapointed. Mainly because of dissapointing flow.

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a few
satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as fast as
any storage system and no tanks or cylinders. Just because your mates have
put in an inappropriate models does not mean they are all like that. Find
out.

The mains pressure here is around 1 Bar and I suspect sometimes less when
it's been dry for a while and everyone is watering their gardens. Not
being able to have a power shower without difficulty is not acceptable as
far as I am concerned.

Is that 1 bar static pressure, with nothing flowing?

Also I neglected to mention we are planning a solar installation so a big
storage cylinder seems like a very good idea to improve the efficiency and
reduce the payback time.

Ah he missed lots out. If you do have dire water mains pressure, this
usually improves when a new 25mm plastic mains pipe is fitted, then fit a
loft tank and heat bank. Heat banks are superb for mixing different heat
sources and ideal for solar. Have a pump on the tank to heat bank line to
give high pressure water at "all" taps. When the mains is updated in the
road then you can strip out the tanks and pumps and go direct from the
mains. Have an integrated heat bank running the CH from it. It is the best
solution and gives great scope and flexibility for the future too.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
If you do have dire water mains pressure, this usually improves when a
new 25mm plastic mains pipe is fitted

Dribble reinventing the laws of physics again. And he claims to have a
degree...

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

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

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models
now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months,
the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until
of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the
size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes for
a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and
those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many
parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains
leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--

These are exactly the reasons why I don't want a combi.

But that was tripe.

Everyone I know who has been sold one on the basis of the benefits has
been dissapointed. Mainly because of dissapointing flow.

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a few
satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as fast
as any storage system and no tanks or cylinders.

Can you run a power shower with that?

Ah he missed lots out. If you do have dire water mains pressure, this
usually improves when a new 25mm plastic mains pipe is fitted, then fit a
loft tank and heat bank. Heat banks are superb for mixing different heat
sources and ideal for solar. Have a pump on the tank to heat bank line to
give high pressure water at "all" taps. When the mains is updated in the
road then you can strip out the tanks and pumps and go direct from the
mains. Have an integrated heat bank running the CH from it. It is the
best solution and gives great scope and flexibility for the future too.

I suspect all rather more expensive than the £419 tank that I am going to
have fitted.

H

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models
now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months,
the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until
of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the
size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes
for a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and
those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many
parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains
leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--

These are exactly the reasons why I don't want a combi.

But that was tripe written by an idiot.

Everyone I know who has been sold one on the basis of the benefits has
been dissapointed. Mainly because of dissapointing flow.

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a
few satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as
fast as any storage system and no tanks or cylinders.

Can you run a power shower with that?

A good as your mains pressure can deliver.

Ah he missed lots out. If you do have dire water mains pressure, this
usually improves when a new 25mm plastic mains pipe is fitted, then fit a
loft tank and heat bank. Heat banks are superb for mixing different heat
sources and ideal for solar. Have a pump on the tank to heat bank line
to give high pressure water at "all" taps. When the mains is updated in
the road then you can strip out the tanks and pumps and go direct from
the mains. Have an integrated heat bank running the CH from it. It is
the best solution and gives great scope and flexibility for the future
too.

I suspect all rather more expensive than the £419 tank that I am going to
have fitted.

With a solar coil as well? And an expensive shower pump too. Up the price a
bit, a lot, it will all mount up. The heat bank is as I explained. It will
do all together and be future proof.

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

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

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TheScullster wrote:

"HLAH" wrote
.

You should consider a combi first. They make some fabulous models
now.

I'm sure there are but I still don't want one :-)

Having paid particular attention to boiler posts over recent months,
the
problems encountered seem to relate to the complexity of control and
electronics in the modern condensing units, rather than whether they
include the hot water generating "combi" element.

Depends also on what flow you want. It's easy to get high flow in the
average house from a storage system to fill say a bath quickly - until
of
course that store runs out. But that's why storage cylinders are the
size
they are. And a fast recovery type will re-heat in the time it takes
for a
leisurely bath.
No domestic combi will match this flow at the same temperature, and
those
which get closest ain't cheap. There's also the problem that in many
parts
of the country water pressure is low in an attempt to combat mains
leaks.
This can reduce the potential of any combi system even further.
See the heating FAQ - it gives chapter and verse.

--

These are exactly the reasons why I don't want a combi.

But that was tripe written by an idiot.

Everyone I know who has been sold one on the basis of the benefits has
been dissapointed. Mainly because of dissapointing flow.

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a
few satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as
fast as any storage system and no tanks or cylinders.

Can you run a power shower with that?

A good as your mains pressure can deliver.

Oh so crap for here then. No thanks I want a really good shower.


I suspect all rather more expensive than the £419 tank that I am going to
have fitted.

With a solar coil as well?

Yes

And an expensive shower pump too.

No not a very expensive pump.

Up the price a
bit, a lot, it will all mount up. The heat bank is as I explained. It will
do all together and be future proof.

H

"HLAH" wrote in message
...

A good as your mains pressure can deliver.

Oh so crap for here then. No thanks I want a really good shower.

Doesn't matter as you are going solar panels. Although a good mains
pressure is highly desirable. What is it like after a new plastic pipe is
run in? A few neighghbours must have had it done.

I suspect all rather more expensive than the £419 tank that I am going
to have fitted.

With a solar coil as well?

Yes

And an expensive shower pump too.

No not a very expensive pump.

Cheap ones are not worth the hassle.

Up the price a
bit, a lot, it will all mount up. The heat bank is as I explained. It
will do all together and be future proof.

Very well worth considering.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sort of my thoughts. Unless you have an ancient system with a boiler than
cycles continuously 40% saving is pie in the sky.

A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a decent
fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least 20kW, some of
the older standard ones may not be able to use more than 5kW).

--
Cheers,

John.

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

HLAH wrote:

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a few
satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as fast
as any storage system and no tanks or cylinders.


Can you run a power shower with that?

Nope, you can't use any form of pumped shower on a what is to all
intents a mains feed.

A "high flow" combi will only be of any use if you have the mains supply
performance to feed it[1].

Going to the expense of laying in a new feed from the street main will
do nothing to increase the static pressure, but will usually improve the
flow rate (i.e. less dynamic pressure drop). If you only have 1 bar
static pressure then you are never going to get much of a shower from
that under its own steam.

[1] You can do other complicated expensive stuff using accumulators to
buffer incoming cold water which can give you a temporary boost to
pressure and flow rate, but this is pretty pointless if all it lets you
do is run a expensive combi solution in place of a far simpler storage
system that achieves an equal result for a fraction of the cost. (Of
course, for Dribble a Combi always = "better", but that is just him)

mains. Have an integrated heat bank running the CH from it. It is the
best solution and gives great scope and flexibility for the future too.

Out of date info. You will get better performance from most modern
boilers if you let them drive the rads directly so that the boiler can
sense the actual heating load and modulate accordingly.

Heating from the heat bank makes more sense if you want low temp feeds
for under floor etc.

I suspect all rather more expensive than the ï½£419 tank that I am going to
have fitted.

Standard fare for a dribble solution, it will cost more, and he has not
thought it through properly.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Sort of my thoughts. Unless you have an ancient system with a boiler than
cycles continuously 40% saving is pie in the sky.

A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a decent
fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least 20kW, some of
the older standard ones may not be able to use more than 5kW).

Oh indeed, but that doesn't translate into a similar saving in energy.

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

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
HLAH wrote:

Then get a highflow combi. Do a search on this group for Alpha CD50 a
few satisfied users. who will confirm the flowrates. They will a bath as
fast as any storage system and no tanks or cylinders.


Can you run a power shower with that?

Nope, you can't use any form of pumped shower on a what is to all intents
a mains feed.

You can but certian strict conditions. See water company.

A "high flow" combi will only be of any use if you have the mains supply
performance to feed it[1].

Going to the expense of laying in a new feed from the street main will do
nothing to increase the static pressure, but will usually improve the flow
rate (i.e. less dynamic pressure drop). If you only have 1 bar static
pressure then you are never going to get much of a shower from that under
its own steam.

Most power shower pumps only deliver 1 bar.

[1] You can do other complicated expensive stuff using accumulators to
buffer incoming cold water which can give you a temporary boost to
pressure and flow rate, but this is pretty pointless if all it lets you do
is run a expensive combi solution in place of a far simpler storage system
that achieves an equal result for a fraction of the cost. (Of course, for
Dribble a Combi always = "better", but that is just him)

Combi is not always better. In 90% of cases it is. In this case no. If I was
him, I would get the mains seen to as it needs to be irrespective. If it is
not possible to get a good flow, then I would fit an accumulator. You can
make one yourself for a fraction of the price what some people are selling
them as packages. Then I would fit a heat bank to do the boiler and solar.
No pumps. Lots of flow and pressure up to the static mains pressure at all
taps hot and cold. Some packaged accumulators will have pumps to increase
the pressure too, but very expensive.

mains. Have an integrated heat bank running the CH from it. It is the
best solution and gives great scope and flexibility for the future too.

Out of date info. You will get better performance from most modern boilers
if you let them drive the rads directly so that the boiler can sense the
actual heating load and modulate accordingly.

Total tripe, you are playing the know-it-all arsehole again. Well you do
speak out your arse most of the time. Tell the Germans that. Buffered Heat
Banks are way over there. This man has come here for advice, not the
ramblings of a know-it-all amateur whose total experience of heating id
fitting his own combi. Please be quite. You are a total amateur not knowing
much at all. Heat banks provide boiler and CH buffers and provide for solar
too. All in one cylinder.

snip amateur garbage

To the original poster go to one of the forums that the professionals use.
Maxie uses the heating forum on DIYNot.com. Not bad, I had a look. Try that
in future. The forum specialises in heating plumbing so a low noise level of
idiots which permeate this group. Just don't take any notice of the idiot
amateurs on here.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Most power shower pumps only deliver 1 bar.

No, go re-read you catalogues again - most deliver 1 bar plus "more",
where more ranges from about 0.4 to 2. A small light boost pump would be
something like 1.4 bar, with more powerful ones commonly available up to
three bar.

Shower pumps that deliver only 1 bar or less are in a small minority -
such as the integrated into a single box "power shower" type solutions.

Combi is not always better. In 90% of cases it is. In this case no. If I

90% huh... any justification to support this assertion of faith?

Then I would fit a heat bank
to do the boiler and solar. No pumps. Lots of flow and pressure up to
the static mains pressure at all taps hot and cold.

I think we have already established that the static presure is poor anyway.

Some packaged
accumulators will have pumps to increase the pressure too, but very
expensive.

Yes, I think you will find that is what I said. Well done keep learning.

Out of date info. You will get better performance from most modern
boilers if you let them drive the rads directly so that the boiler can
sense the actual heating load and modulate accordingly.


Total tripe, you are playing the know-it-all arsehole again. Well you

Sorry, no point in trying to explain it to you since, as you have
demonstated in the past, you don't have the basic understanding of
control theory required.

do speak out your arse most of the time. Tell the Germans that. Buffered
Heat Banks are way over there.

Hmm, they have various other strange idears about plumbing.

Please be quite. You are a total amateur not
knowing much at all.

Does everything have to be about you all the time?

Heat banks provide boiler and CH buffers and
provide for solar too. All in one cylinder.

A heat bank is a useful way to aggregate the law value heat from the
solar system. However its "buffer" action of which you speak is actually
a disadvantage wrt to the performance of the boiler driving the rads.

Just don't take any
notice of the idiot amateurs on here.

Now that is a paradoxical instruction... if he follows it he just has!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

snip total drivel by an idiotic amateur

Heat banks provide boiler and CH buffers and provide for solar too. All
in one cylinder.

A heat bank is a useful way to aggregate the law value heat from the solar
system.

10 out 10. V good.

However

This means he is thinking. Let's wait...

its "buffer" action of which you speak is actually a disadvantage wrt to
the performance of the boiler driving the rads.

You are talking out of your arse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just don't take any notice of the idiot amateurs on here like Rumm. Coming
to DIY groups can be dangerous.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 01:20:11 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Combi is not always better.

Indeed not, some people have to install an electric inline booster heater
to get a decent shower from one. Like you, for example.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 01:20:11 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

To the original poster go to one of the forums that the professionals use.
Maxie uses the heating forum on DIYNot.com. Not bad, I had a look. Try that
in future. The forum specialises in heating plumbing so a low noise level of
idiots which permeate this group. Just don't take any notice of the idiot
amateurs on here.

The only idiot amateur here is Drivel. He's admitted as much in the past,
but he "considers himself to be a semi-pro."

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The only idiot amateur here is Drivel. He's admitted as much in the past,
but he "considers himself to be a semi-pro."

You really need to read the claims he's made over the years in his
various guises. And not one ever substantiated.

He claims to be a heating engineer with a university degree. But by the
number of basic gaffs couldn't possibly be.

Best bet is a plumbing merchant's counter assistant with an extensive
knowledge of product. But not a clue about how to specify or install. And
a good memory for all the snippets he hears from customers.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 01:20:11 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Combi is not always better.

Indeed not, some people have
to install an electric inline booster heater
to get a decent shower from one. Like you, for example.

I put an in-line heater top get a boost on a combi? No ways? I did? Only
a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated) member would do that.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 01:20:11 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

To the original poster go to one of the forums that the professionals
use.
Maxie uses the heating forum on DIYNot.com. Not bad, I had a look. Try
that
in future. The forum specialises in heating plumbing so a low noise level
of
idiots which permeate this group. Just don't take any notice of the
idiot
amateurs on here.

The only idiot amateur here is Drivel. He's admitted as much in the past,
but he "considers himself to be a semi-pro."

I am an amateur? No ways? Me? Full pro me boy. uk.d-i-y Lunatic
Association (affiliated) members can be dangerous. Best not to take any
notice of them. Is you membership up soon?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He claims to be a heating
engineer with a university degree. But by the
number of basic gaffs couldn't possibly be.

This is hilarious. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. This one didn't know the difference between high and low pressure
taps. He bought high pressure taps for his sink (cut the tap tails short as
well) then wondered why he was only getting a dribble out of the taps. He
posted here asking why. Anyone with sense would go out and buy a proper set
of low pressure taps and fit them. Not this one...wait...in the current
thread "Hot Water Woes"...this is what he wrote.....

"I had the same problem after installing a high pressure only 'mixer' tap
in the kitchen - I couldn't find a low pressure one I liked. I installed
the pump under the sink. Works a treat."

He put a pump under the sink to get the pressure up on the mixer instead of
changing the mixer taps. Hilarious...hilarious. The best yet. I've never
heard that one. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. Yes, you read this sort of thing here. Good for a laugh indeed.

The problem is a novice might believe all this and take the advice. That is
the serious and dangerous part.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
He claims to be a heating
engineer with a university degree. But by the
number of basic gaffs couldn't possibly be.

This is hilarious. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. This one didn't know the difference between high and low
pressure taps. He bought high pressure taps for his sink (cut the tap
tails short as well) then wondered why he was only getting a dribble
out of the taps.

Tap. The low pressure hot water. A dribble rather similar to a combi such
as yours. I'm used to a high flow storage system.

And you've just confirmed your lack of any skills if you can't cut a
thread made of brass. Of course we knew that after your incident with the
plastic pipe and hacksaw. Perhaps you could go to night school and learn
some basic skills?

He posted here asking why. Anyone with sense would
go out and buy a proper set of low pressure taps and fit them. Not
this one...wait...in the current thread "Hot Water Woes"...this is what
he wrote.....

"I had the same problem after installing a high pressure only 'mixer' tap
in the kitchen - I couldn't find a low pressure one I liked. I installed
the pump under the sink. Works a treat."

He put a pump under the sink to get the pressure up on the mixer instead
of changing the mixer taps.

Which part of 'couldn't find a low pressure one I liked' don't you
understand? I know your comprehension of English is poor, but it's a
pretty simple statement. Those with taste will buy things that look good
and if it means some modification, so what? It's low rent semi skilled
plumbers that *only* fit what is easy. Hence your love of combis and
system boilers.

Hilarious...hilarious. The best yet. I've never
heard that one. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. Yes, you read this sort of thing here. Good for a laugh indeed.

Glad to oblige. Your life is obviously sad if this amuses you.

The problem is a novice might believe all this and take the advice. That
is the serious and dangerous part.

It's 'serious and dangerous' to repalce a kitchen tap? Now I know you're
barking...

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

He claims to be a heating
engineer with a university
degree. But by the
number of basic gaffs
couldn't possibly be.

This is hilarious. Only from a uk.d-i-y
Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. This one didn't know the
difference between high and low
pressure taps. He bought high pressure
taps for his sink (cut the tap
tails short as well) then wondered why
he was only getting a dribble
out of the taps.

Tap. The low pressure hot water.

Yep, the low pressure hot water which you put a high pressure mixer on not
knowing any different. It must have took him all day to do that as well.

I'm used to a high flow storage system.

Then it became a dribble flow as you put high pressure taps on a low
pressure system. Hilarious.

He posted here asking why. Anyone with sense would
go out and buy a proper set of low pressure taps and fit them. Not
this one...wait...in the current thread "Hot Water Woes"...this is what
he wrote.....

"I had the same problem after installing a high pressure only 'mixer' tap
in the kitchen - I couldn't find a low pressure one I liked. I installed
the pump under the sink. Works a treat."

He put a pump under the sink to get the pressure up on the mixer instead
of changing the mixer taps.

Those with taste

Taste? You have a taste for pumps. Pumps to get one tap work. Like the in
vogue colours of these pumps? Flash switches?

will buy things that look good and
if it means some modification, so
what?

So that is your pathetic excuse for not knowing the difference. Hilarious.
Then he puts a pump on it........yes, a pump for one tap. ROFLMAO

It's low rent semi skilled
plumbers that *only* fit what is easy.
Hence your love of combis and
system boilers.

Meandering again. A combi has no relation whatsoever to him fitting high
pressure taps on a low pressure system....then fitting pump to get the water
though. This is good.

Hilarious...hilarious. The best yet. I've never
heard that one. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic
Association (affiliated) member. Yes, you
read this sort of thing here. Good for a laugh indeed.

Glad to oblige.

You never fail.

Your life is obviously sad if this amuses you.

Anyone who know the least about plumbing will laugh their arses off.

It's 'serious and dangerous' to repalce
a kitchen tap?

With a pump to get it to work!!!!!!!! Best yet, Hilarious!!!! But he never
serviced his boiler for 12 years and tells people to do the same. This is
the dangerous part about these people. We can laugh at the stupid things
they do, like this tap case, but it is the dangerous part of them which is
alarming.

They do make us all larf.

John Rumm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

relatively "slow" cylinder (reducing the cycling *does* reduce the fuel
used a little).

I've always wondered by how much though. The only difference I can see
is the boiler water output temp will be hgher during a brief full power
burst than it will be in modulation. Modulation will improve
efficiency, but not by much afaics. A difference of perhaps 30C out of
a flame temp of 10s of times that doesnt look like it would amount to
much, a few percent maybe.


Sort of my thoughts. Unless you have an ancient system with a boiler than
cycles continuously 40% saving is pie in the sky.

A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a decent
fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least 20kW, some of
the older standard ones may not be able to use more than 5kW).

Would 1960s be about the right guess for a cylinder that manages all of
2kW throughput?


NT

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Total tripe, you are playing the know-it-all arsehole again. Well you do
speak out your arse most of the time. Tell the Germans that. Buffered Heat
Banks are way over there. This man has come here for advice, not the
ramblings of a know-it-all amateur whose total experience of heating id
fitting his own combi. Please be quite. You are a total amateur not knowing
much at all. Heat banks provide boiler and CH buffers and provide for solar
too. All in one cylinder.

snip amateur garbage

To the original poster go to one of the forums that the professionals use.
Maxie uses the heating forum on DIYNot.com. Not bad, I had a look. Try that
in future. The forum specialises in heating plumbing so a low noise level of
idiots which permeate this group. Just don't take any notice of the idiot
amateurs on here.

well at least hes got a sense of humour.


NT

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Rumm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

relatively "slow" cylinder (reducing
the cycling *does* reduce the fuel
used a little).

I've always wondered by how much
though. The only difference I can see
is the boiler water output temp will be
hgher during a brief full power
burst than it will be in modulation.
Modulation will improve efficiency,
but not by much afaics. A difference
of perhaps 30C out of a flame temp
of 10s of times that doesnt look like
it would amount to
much, a few percent maybe.

A set rate burner designed for maximum efficiency is more efficient that a
modulation burner. A compromise is reached with modulation, although the
more expensive burners are more efficient when modulating.

A small cylinder coil ensures a high return temperature reducing condensing
efficiency, and promoting inefficient boiler cycling. A large cylinder coil
does the reverse. A large cylinder coil takes more kW reducing the size of
the cylinder, as rapid re-heats are ensured. Less DHW stored buffer space is
needed.

To get the best efficiency:
- The boiler needs to be 20kW and above, more like 25-30kW,
- The cylinder coil must take all the boilers output
- The boiler has a set rate burner
- The cylinder has two cylinder stats to prevent boiler cycling.

Would 1960s be about the right guess for a cylinder that manages all of
2kW throughput?

Yep. Some cowboy makers had 1" coils with few turns.

You could make your own quick recovery cylinder quite cheaply. Buy a
standard direct cylinder, without a coil. That is cheap. Get a bronze pump,
a plate heat exchanger and two cylinder stats, a relay and a plastic
electrical wall box.

The boiler pumps into the plate heat exchanger as if it is pumping into a
coil. The bronze pump pumps water out of the bottom of the cylinder and
through the plate. The two cylinder stats prevent boiler cycling (the relay
is needed for this to work). The total cost will be less than an off the
shelf similar sized Albion with a coil. With the plate the efficiency will
be much higher as the plate is far more efficient than the coil. The
cylinder size can be vastly reduced. The heat extracted from the boiler is
far more than a coil giving a very low return temperature promoting
efficiency.

If there is excellent mains flow and pressure it is quite easy to do similar
and make a directly heated heat bank. No bronze pump needed then.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Total tripe, you are playing the know-it-all arsehole again. Well you do
speak out your arse most of the time. Tell the Germans that. Buffered
Heat
Banks are way over there. This man has come here for advice, not the
ramblings of a know-it-all amateur whose total experience of heating id
fitting his own combi. Please be quite. You are a total amateur not
knowing
much at all. Heat banks provide boiler and CH buffers and provide for
solar
too. All in one cylinder.

snip amateur garbage

To the original poster go to one of the forums that the professionals
use.
Maxie uses the heating forum on DIYNot.com. Not bad, I had a look. Try
that
in future. The forum specialises in heating plumbing so a low noise level
of
idiots which permeate this group. Just don't take any notice of the
idiot
amateurs on here.

well at least hes got a sense of humour.

Humour? Rumm the Chav was serious.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He claims to be a heating
engineer with a university degree. But by the
number of basic gaffs couldn't possibly be.

This is hilarious. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. This one didn't know the difference between high and low pressure
taps. He bought high pressure taps for his sink (cut the tap tails short as
well) then wondered why he was only getting a dribble out of the taps. He
posted here asking why. Anyone with sense would go out and buy a proper set
of low pressure taps and fit them. Not this one...wait...in the current
thread "Hot Water Woes"...this is what he wrote.....

"I had the same problem after installing a high pressure only 'mixer' tap
in the kitchen - I couldn't find a low pressure one I liked. I installed
the pump under the sink. Works a treat."

He put a pump under the sink to get the pressure up on the mixer instead of
changing the mixer taps. Hilarious...hilarious. The best yet. I've never
heard that one. Only from a uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association (affiliated)
member. Yes, you read this sort of thing here. Good for a laugh indeed.

The problem is a novice might believe all this and take the advice. That is
the serious and dangerous part.

A pump for one tap? ROFL Classic!!!!

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a decent
fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least 20kW, some of
the older standard ones may not be able to use more than 5kW).

Oh indeed, but that doesn't translate into a similar saving in energy.

Dribble resides in my killfile but from the reposts I have seen I
thought that (ie 40% energy saving) was precisely what Dribble was
claiming.

--
Roger Chapman

wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


relatively "slow" cylinder (reducing the cycling *does* reduce the fuel
used a little).


I've always wondered by how much though. The only difference I can see
is the boiler water output temp will be hgher during a brief full power
burst than it will be in modulation. Modulation will improve
efficiency, but not by much afaics. A difference of perhaps 30C out of
a flame temp of 10s of times that doesnt look like it would amount to
much, a few percent maybe.

The other big loss is that each time you cycle the boiler off, you can
end up blowing most of the primary heat exchanger's stored heat out of
the flue. With the next on cycle this will need to be reheated.
Obviously this is more of an issue with an old cast iron lump with high
thermal inertia, than a modern light weight design. How the pump control
is configured also has a bearing. Worst case being one that simply stops
at the end of the burn leaving the HE "hot".

A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a decent
fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least 20kW, some of
the older standard ones may not be able to use more than 5kW).


Would 1960s be about the right guess for a cylinder that manages all of
2kW throughput?

Could be, sounds a bit low even so. Many convection circulation systems
can do better than that.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article .com,
wrote:
A pump for one tap? ROFL Classic!!!!

I'd be interested to know your solution to the problem - quite seriously.
I thought long and hard about the alternatives. If you need more
information I'll willingly provide it.

BTW, this applies to dribble too.

Oh - and it must cost approximately the same - or less - as my solution
and take no longer, labour wise.

There you are - a chance for the pair of you to put your money where your
mouth is.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

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

Doctor Drivel wrote:

its "buffer" action of which you speak is actually a disadvantage wrt
to the performance of the boiler driving the rads.


You are talking out of your arse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strange then how my arse seems to know more about the subject that
someone like you who claims to be a "pro".

Go have a look into the effects of adding additional energy storage
terms into control equations. In particular how it effects the order of
the response of the system as a whole, and what the implications may be
in (for example) changing a first order response system into a second
order one, and yet still retaining the original control loop. Then you
may begin to understand.

To the OP, you are probably getting the picture that Dribble here has
delusions of competance, in spite of being little more than an obnoxious
gob on a stick. A bit of reading on google groups will lay bare the
whole sorry mess assuming you can find some of his posts that are not
totally content free.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Roger wrote:
A 40% saving in time to reheat could be feasable... (in fact a
decent fast recovery cylinder should be able to swallow at least
20kW, some of the older standard ones may not be able to use more
than 5kW).

Oh indeed, but that doesn't translate into a similar saving in energy.

Dribble resides in my killfile but from the reposts I have seen I
thought that (ie 40% energy saving) was precisely what Dribble was
claiming.

He always claims some theoretical maximum as the norm when 'selling' his
ideas. He lives in a world where 100% efficiency may be exceeded.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
A pump for one tap? ROFL Classic!!!!

I'd be interested to know your
solution to the problem

Get the right taps in the first place. If they are wrong then put the right
taps in, not put a pump in for one tap. That is how 99.99% of humanity would
have done it.

- quite seriously.
I thought long and hard about the alternatives.

Thought? That figures. That is how you came up with a pump on one tap.
ROFLMAO

If you need more
information I'll willingly provide it.

Enough is enough. I can't handle any more my sides are splitting. ROFLMAO

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

He lives in a world where 100% efficiency may be exceeded.

Tell that to Viessmann and all the other condensing boiler world. I'll let
you know...Viessmann do not put a pump on each tap. ROFLMAO.