Aidan wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, "Phil L" wrote:


Now I know you are bull****ting, all those 'room sealed' gas fires
have
balanced flues, they take air from outside, although I can't believe
they
didn't teach you this at HVAC university.

Of course they do, Phil. That's why they're called "room sealed".
They're much safer than conventional open flued appliances and far,
far safer than
stupid flueless heaters. It's very unlikely that they'll spill CO into
the room, see?


And can they be fitted in a 9th storey concrete flat? - flueless gas fires
are perfectly safe, you just don't think anyone is bright enough or capable
of operating one...and you also said that room sealed gas fires don't
require ventilation, which they do, otherwise there wouldn't be a big ugly
flue sticking out of the wall - they are vented to outside - they require
ventilation like all gas fires as I stated umpteen posts ago, although I
expect you've forgot this by now.

Phil L wrote:And BTW, I can say anything I like in this group or any
other, if someone asks a question, I'll give them an answer,
something you seem unable to do,
it's a pity your education didn't give you the courage to believe in
yourself rather than having a pop at those that do


I've answered lots of questions. For example, I've just answered your
question; "Which ones can operate safely in a sealed room?"

You avoided the question about ventilation.

If you post something that's wrong, I may feel obliged to correct you.

please feel free to do so, but try to be a bit more correct next time,
instead of wrong.

So far, you've been consistently wrong and you have taken umbrage at
my correcting your numerous mistakes.

like 'sealed room' fires with a feckin big flue on the back?

Bwahahahaha

On Dec 3, 11:12 pm, "Phil L" wrote:


Phil L wrote:And BTW, I can say anything I like in this group or any
other, if someone asks a question, I'll give them an answer,
something you seem unable to do,

What is the point in offering answers about subjects you know nothing
about, or answers that you know are quite probably wrong?

Is there any point?

So far, you've been consistently wrong and you have taken umbrage at
my correcting your numerous mistakes.like 'sealed room' fires with a feckin big flue on the back?

Bwahahahaha

Feeble, Phil, quite pathetic.
You're just boring now.
I should never have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man

Aidan wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:12 pm, "Phil L" wrote:


Phil L wrote:And BTW, I can say anything I like in this group or
any other, if someone asks a question, I'll give them an answer,
something you seem unable to do,

What is the point in offering answers about subjects you know nothing
about, or answers that you know are quite probably wrong?

Is there any point?

Yes, they wind up idiots like you for days on end, possibly weeks!
And my statements in *this* thread were correct, yours were wrong....my
statements in the manometer thread were partially wrong, inthat gas is
supplied at 2bar to the meter, but it didn't make a blind bit of difference
to anything anyhow because the OP of that thread got wet because of high gas
pressure blowing his liquid out of his manometer, as I said.



So far, you've been consistently wrong and you have taken umbrage at
my correcting your numerous mistakes.like 'sealed room' fires with
a feckin big flue on the back?

Bwahahahaha

Feeble, Phil, quite pathetic.
You're just boring now.
I should never have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man

Awww diddums!

PS, didn't you stateWRT flueless fires)

"We have uPVC windows & doors, draught-proofing, sheet flooring
(laminate or laminated timber), gypsum plastered walls & ceilings, and
caulking to fill any remaining gaps. Some houses are getting pretty
airtight. Introducing a 2.6kW open flame into some such houses is
bloody ignorant."

And informed all and sundry that they are death traps and should be banned?

And then when you were informed that our 'uPVC windows' (as mentioned above)
have to have trickle vents, and that these flueless gas fires also have to
have extra ventilation, spit your dummy out and sulk about a different
thread?

On Dec 4, 5:25 pm, "Phil L" wrote:


And then when you were informed that our 'uPVC windows' (as mentioned above)
have to have trickle vents, and that these flueless gas fires also have to
have extra ventilation, spit your dummy out and sulk about a different
thread?


Sigh!

Phil L wrote:

And fensa fitted windows, and indeed all windows manufactured today are made with a permanent vent fitted for this very purpose, or is this another
subject of which you know zero about?

Fensa was established about 2002.
Many older windows won't have trickle vents.
Trickle vents probably won't provide adequate ventilation for a
flueless gas fire (100cm^2?) How big are your windows?
Any accessible vents are liable to be blocked by the Users.
Even with adequate vents, they are very, very inefficient. 100%
efficiency is a marketing lie to ensnare the gullible.

No point in being offensive, Phil. It's not my fault that you're both
wrong and very stupid.

Aidan wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:25 pm, "Phil L" wrote:


And then when you were informed that our 'uPVC windows' (as
mentioned above)
have to have trickle vents, and that these flueless gas fires also
have to
have extra ventilation, spit your dummy out and sulk about a
different
thread?


Sigh!

Phil L wrote:

And fensa fitted windows, and indeed all windows manufactured today
are made with a permanent vent fitted for this very purpose, or is
this another subject of which you know zero about?

Fensa was established about 2002.
I see, and the 100cm2 required for the fire?

Many older windows won't have trickle vents.
I see, and the 100cm2 required for the fire?

Trickle vents probably won't provide adequate ventilation for a
flueless gas fire (100cm^2?) How big are your windows?

bigger than yours.

Any accessible vents are liable to be blocked by the Users.

WTF?!! you are basing your ridiculous arguments on numpties who block up
vents, anyone with a brain larger than a grape will not block up the vent,
especially when it says on it in capital letters, 'DO NOT BLOCK THIS VENT,
YOU NEED IT TO LIVE'

Even with adequate vents, they are very, very inefficient. 100%
efficiency is a marketing lie to ensnare the gullible.


how can they be less than 100% efficient if *all* of the heat goes into the
room?

No point in being offensive, Phil. It's not my fault that you're both
wrong and very stupid.

"No point in being offensive" and then proceed to call me stupid?....Hmmm,
no point in being offensive Aidan, you gormless prick.

The message om
from "Aidan" contains these words:

What is the point in offering answers about subjects you know nothing
about, or answers that you know are quite probably wrong?

Are you new to usenet or something?

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

On Dec 4, 6:15 pm, "Phil L" wrote:

Fensa was established about 2002.
Many older windows won't have trickle vents.

I see, and the 100cm2 required for the fire?

You brought up Fensa windows and trickle vents. I've just demolished
that argument.

How big are your windows?
bigger than yours.

How very sad.


how can they be less than 100% efficient if *all* of the heat goes into the
room?

'Cos, Phil, you measure efficiency at a steady state condition. The
thing about them is that not only does all the heat goes into the room,
but all the combustion products do too.

So then, in order to keep the CO2 at a tolerable level, you'd have to
ventilate the room and by doing so you have to allow heated air out
and cold air in. That is a necessary heat loss, so it can't be 100%
efficient.

In fact, it's uncontrolled ventilation and you'd have to bring in a lot
more cold air than if the CO2 was removed at the fire before it had
mixed with the room air. The ventilation is there all the time, so
you're losing heat through it all the time, even when the fire is off.
You'd also have to have a huge amount of ventilation to remove the
water vapour these things condense all over your walls, as was pointed
out by Mr Ed.

If it was a boiler, it would have a SEDBUK rating of about W.
It isn't a boiler, so the manufacturers can make stupid, implausible
efficiency claims to mislead the technically challenged.

The other thing is that the catalytic converter will only convert the
CO into CO2 whilst there's an adequate supply of oxygen. One of the
effects of high CO2 levels is that it makes you drowsy. If one of these
things started kicking out CO, the preceding high CO2 levels might have
put the victims out too far to be able to respond to a CO alarm.

No point in being offensive, Phil. It's not my fault that you're both
wrong and very stupid.

"No point in being offensive" and then proceed to call me stupid?.

That ain't offensive, Phil. That's just the plain, old, unpalatable
truth.
You do seem to be very hard of understanding.
I haven't started being offensive, yet.

On Dec 4, 6:15 pm, "Phil L" wrote:

Any accessible vents are liable to be blocked by the Users.WTF?!! you are basing your ridiculous arguments on numpties who block up
vents, anyone with a brain larger than a grape will not block up the vent,
especially when it says on it in capital letters, 'DO NOT BLOCK THIS VENT,
YOU NEED IT TO LIVE'

If such a vent were properly installed, could it not be obstructed from
outside without the users being aware that it had been blocked? It
happens all the time.

In the real world, many users won't be aware that their fire is
flueless, or they won't know the reasons for the vent. Many won't be
marked. Some will be blocked inadvertently without the users knowing it.

Aidan wrote:
On Dec 4, 6:15 pm, "Phil L" wrote:

Fensa was established about 2002.
Many older windows won't have trickle vents.

I see, and the 100cm2 required for the fire?

You brought up Fensa windows and trickle vents. I've just demolished
that argument.

How big are your windows?
bigger than yours.

How very sad.


how can they be less than 100% efficient if *all* of the heat goes
into the room?

'Cos, Phil, you measure efficiency at a steady state condition. The
thing about them is that not only does all the heat goes into the
room, but all the combustion products do too.

So then, in order to keep the CO2 at a tolerable level, you'd have to
ventilate the room and by doing so you have to allow heated air out
and cold air in. That is a necessary heat loss, so it can't be 100%
efficient.

In fact, it's uncontrolled ventilation and you'd have to bring in a
lot more cold air than if the CO2 was removed at the fire before it
had mixed with the room air. The ventilation is there all the time, so
you're losing heat through it all the time, even when the fire is off.
You'd also have to have a huge amount of ventilation to remove the
water vapour these things condense all over your walls, as was pointed
out by Mr Ed.

If it was a boiler, it would have a SEDBUK rating of about W.
It isn't a boiler, so the manufacturers can make stupid, implausible
efficiency claims to mislead the technically challenged.

The other thing is that the catalytic converter will only convert the
CO into CO2 whilst there's an adequate supply of oxygen. One of the
effects of high CO2 levels is that it makes you drowsy. If one of
these things started kicking out CO, the preceding high CO2 levels
might have put the victims out too far to be able to respond to a CO
alarm.

No point in being offensive, Phil. It's not my fault that you're
both wrong and very stupid.

"No point in being offensive" and then proceed to call me stupid?.

That ain't offensive, Phil. That's just the plain, old, unpalatable
truth.
You do seem to be very hard of understanding.
I haven't started being offensive, yet.

I agree with everything you've said, you are *undoubtedly* the king of
usenet, nay, the universe, now **** off and leave me alone

On Dec 4, 8:09 pm, "Phil L" wrote:
I agree with everything you've said, you are *undoubtedly* the king of
usenet, nay, the universe, now **** off and leave me alone

Awww, Phil.
And I was getting so fond of you.

Aidan wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:09 pm, "Phil L" wrote:
I agree with everything you've said, you are *undoubtedly* the king
of usenet, nay, the universe, now **** off and leave me alone

Awww, Phil.
And I was getting so fond of you.

Hang around, I'm sure there'll be other discrepancies you can pick up on and
astound everyone with your infinite knowledge....HVAC uni eventually paid
off after all eh?

"Phil L" wrote in message
. uk...
Aidan wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:19 am, "Phil L" wrote:
Whatever, I'm not getting into some pathetic competition, if you need
your
ego massaging, try elsewhere, 'about 30lbs' as opposed to 2 bar - do
you know what a 'bar' is?

Oh dear.
Phil was wrong and now he's having a hissy, wobbly fit. I do know what
a bar is. I also know the difference between gauge and absolute. And
so do you, now that some kind person has told you.
I was going to, but I was too busy laughing.

Hysterically after realising that 2bar and 'about 30lbs' are one and the
same?


I don't care what the 'Corgi bunch' have

There is no relevant British Standard.1) do you not imagine that
these plans and designs have been passed as safe
by anyone?
2) just because some dweeb doesn't know how to install one without
killing people doesn't make them unsafe
3) there's no relevant british standard for thousands of everyday
items, they don't have to be.


Oh dear. You have bought one, didn't you?

I haven't bought one didn't I.

You know better?Yes, yes I do.
Are you Drivel?No I'm not drivel, are you?

You ARE Drivel. There can't be two idiots this arrogant.

Obviously there are and you are 50% of the above.


They are incredibly efficient, no chimney to take away 75% of the
heat you see.



No, they are not "incredibly efficient". The fires have no
ventilation; the vitiated air must be replaced with cold, fresh air
from outside. This also applies to the CO2 exhaled by people. The
fires may appear to be efficient to those who are technically naive
and who make no allowance for this.

They are incredibly efficient.

And have a great big permanent vent letting a howling gale blow in all
the time Until some uninformed unfortunate blocks it.
And dies.


I see, so conventional gas fires don't need any ventilation?
And fensa fitted windows, and indeed all windows manufactured today are
made with a permanent vent fitted for this very purpose, or is this
another subject of which you know zero about?

You didn't know that?
You installed it yourself and didn't read the instructions.


I'm afraid not, I have never fitted a flueless gas fire, I have tested
them though, along with hundreds of other gas fires, boilers and other gas
appliances as part of my job, what job do you do?

At best, the IAQ will deteriorate. If the ventilation is inadequate,
the O2 will be consumed and the fire will then emit CO, regardless
of
the catalysts and how it was installed.Ooohh, big words, you must
be really clever,

Whoops, silly me! Any technician or engineer would know what that
means.
But you're neither and you don't.

So you're an engineer or technician? - can't make your mind up or have
they not printed your name tag yet to tell you what you are?


why don't you go in for 'head
of fire design' at some large company, that way you might impress
someone, or are you attempting to redefine the word '****'?

I think they're mostly made in Italy. Too far to commute. And I'm too
busy, designing HVAC systems.
You're arguing about engineering, a topic you little about, with an
engineer.

Ah, another HVAC engineer who knows feck all about ventilation and even
less about combustion, there's a novelty.

Phil, as you have found out, Mr Aidan is a plantpot.