Hi,

In the process of clearing a house (deceased relative) and decided the
boiler should have a routine service as it'll be running unattended to keep
some background heat whilst the building is vacant, and winter approacheth.

Long story short - did the "right thing"[1] and booked in a CORGI fitter.

After he cleaned the boiler, he wanted to fire it up to do the smoke test.
Problem is that it wouldn't fire the main burner. After some messing about,
I proved for him that there was in fact 240V reaching the solenoid gas
valve module

The pilot was on and holding in at this stage.

The control gear design is simple - switched-live from heating
controller/stats come in. That goes via a mechanical boiler stat. That then
presents to the solenoid valve module that also takes in the pilot light
thermocouple and provides controlled gas feeds to the main burner and the
pilot. Old style system, no visible electronics (maybe a bit hidden in the
valve module, or not).

When I carefully removed the live connection from the valve module and
replaced it there was a definite "clunk" coming from the unit which I took
to be a valve solenoid.

Weird thing was that the main burner failed to start as a result of
the "clunk". Weirder still was that after about 2 minutes, the burner did
eventually light up and ran correctly on full flame. Upon turning the
boiler circuit off, it took about 1 minute before the main burner shut
down. This time lag for starting and stopping appeared to be consistent and
repeatable.

******

Question: is this time delay between electrical power applied and gas being
switched on a feature of some types of valve module? Or is it indicative
that the module is on the way out? Sticky bits betwixt the solenoid and the
valve perhaps?

******

Before anyone asks, I did ask the fitter and he said he didn't know due to
lack of experience with that type of boiler. Which seems odd as it's not
exactly an old or uncommon model.

Many thanks for any opinions on the valve (or otherwise!)

Cheers

Tim


[1] Nice enough bloke, shame about apparent lack of experience and ability
to undertake basic electrical fault finding, considering his hourly rate.
I'll do the sodding job myself next time.

On 12 Oct, 23:56, Tim Southerwood wrote:
Hi,

In the process of clearing a house (deceased relative) and decided the
boiler should have a routine service as it'll be running unattended to keep
some background heat whilst the building is vacant, and winter approacheth.

Long story short - did the "right thing"[1] and booked in a CORGI fitter.

After he cleaned the boiler, he wanted to fire it up to do the smoke test.
Problem is that it wouldn't fire the main burner. After some messing about,
I proved for him that there was in fact 240V reaching the solenoid gas
valve module

The pilot was on and holding in at this stage.

The control gear design is simple - switched-live from heating
controller/stats come in. That goes via a mechanical boiler stat. That then
presents to the solenoid valve module that also takes in the pilot light
thermocouple and provides controlled gas feeds to the main burner and the
pilot. Old style system, no visible electronics (maybe a bit hidden in the
valve module, or not).

When I carefully removed the live connection from the valve module and
replaced it there was a definite "clunk" coming from the unit which I took
to be a valve solenoid.

Weird thing was that the main burner failed to start as a result of
the "clunk". Weirder still was that after about 2 minutes, the burner did
eventually light up and ran correctly on full flame. Upon turning the
boiler circuit off, it took about 1 minute before the main burner shut
down. This time lag for starting and stopping appeared to be consistent and
repeatable.

******

Question: is this time delay between electrical power applied and gas being
switched on a feature of some types of valve module? Or is it indicative
that the module is on the way out? Sticky bits betwixt the solenoid and the
valve perhaps?

******

Before anyone asks, I did ask the fitter and he said he didn't know due to
lack of experience with that type of boiler. Which seems odd as it's not
exactly an old or uncommon model.

Many thanks for any opinions on the valve (or otherwise!)

Cheers

Tim

[1] Nice enough bloke, shame about apparent lack of experience and ability
to undertake basic electrical fault finding, considering his hourly rate.
I'll do the sodding job myself next time.

Hi Tim
If as you say your boiler is a late 90's model then is is most likely
a Bermuda 552 or 401 model, these models are fitted with the Honeywell
multi functional gas control valve V4600C with a grey round push
button) which includes the solenoid valve. Once power is provided to
the solenoid the burner should light within a few seconds ramping up
to the max burner setting within a short time after ignition. The
solenoid oporator on these models can be purchased seperatly and is
connected to the valve by 4 screws, but your problem may not be the
solenoid at all as the rubber diaphram in the valve may have become
brittle and therfor slow in allowing the gas to flow to the burner. I
would suggest that you have the complete valve replaced as they are
available at much the same cost as the solenoid operater alone.
This is not a DIY job as it involves gas connections being taken apart
and also it is unlikely that you have a manometer to set the burner
pressure after fitting a new part.
Hope this is useful
Martin (CORGI reg gas engineer)

coughed up some electrons that declared:


Hi Tim
If as you say your boiler is a late 90's model then is is most likely
a Bermuda 552 or 401 model, these models are fitted with the Honeywell
multi functional gas control valve V4600C with a grey round push
button) which includes the solenoid valve. Once power is provided to
the solenoid the burner should light within a few seconds ramping up
to the max burner setting within a short time after ignition. The
solenoid oporator on these models can be purchased seperatly and is
connected to the valve by 4 screws, but your problem may not be the
solenoid at all as the rubber diaphram in the valve may have become
brittle and therfor slow in allowing the gas to flow to the burner. I
would suggest that you have the complete valve replaced as they are
available at much the same cost as the solenoid operater alone.
This is not a DIY job as it involves gas connections being taken apart
and also it is unlikely that you have a manometer to set the burner
pressure after fitting a new part.
Hope this is useful
Martin (CORGI reg gas engineer)

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the excellent explanation. Yes, the V4600C looks like the part,
after I googled for it. 60-80 quid, not bad.

OK, if this is not normal behaviour, then I guess I should get a replacement
scheduled.

Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might the
diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

I'm surprised the fitter I had didn't know any of this (I did ask) - he
seemed not very experienced, but that's another issue and I'm taking that
up with his employer...

Many thanks for your time,

Cheers

Tim

Tim Southerwood coughed up some electrons that declared:


Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might
the diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

I have decided to shut the main gas off when I'm not there just in case,
until I have more information.

Cheers

Tim

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:41:57 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:



Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might the
diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

Yes it's dangerous but not for the reason you state. That the gas is not
(fully) controlled is the issue.


I'm surprised the fitter I had didn't know any of this (I did ask) - he
seemed not very experienced, but that's another issue and I'm taking that
up with his employer...

This does seem surprising since controls such as these are a part of
the core syllabus of training for registered fitters.


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

Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:41:57 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:



Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might
the diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

Yes it's dangerous but not for the reason you state. That the gas is not
(fully) controlled is the issue.

Which I guess may potentially lead to the same outcome, say if the pilot
light blew out, then the main burner was fed via the faulty valve. Ouch,
now I'm scared. The gas goes off as soon as I get down there today.


I'm surprised the fitter I had didn't know any of this (I did ask) - he
seemed not very experienced, but that's another issue and I'm taking that
up with his employer...

This does seem surprising since controls such as these are a part of
the core syllabus of training for registered fitters.

I'm generally surprised. I'm a layman WRT gas, but:

When the fitter couldn't get the burner to fire, there was much head
scratching and wondering if the controller was supplying any power to the
boiler.

I suggested it should be as the controller was on, (manual call for heat and
neons lit up), and both the tank and hall thermostats were set to max.
Heating had been working days prior.

He then wondered aloud about the boiler thermostat. After about 10 minutes
of fiddling, I got bored with waiting for him to do what seemed obvious,
ie. go and get his multimeter and start testing. So I broke my policy of
non interference with professionals-at-work and went and got mine and
offered assistance, which was happily received.

Didn't take me long to prove to him that there was power to the boiler. I
then proved the boiler stat was working correctly then prove power to the
valve. It's not a complicated valve, 2 terminals L+N.

Despite this, every now and then he kept wondering if it was the programmer
or wiring or something else. I politely pointed out that if the valve was
powered, but not operating, then it was reasonable to deduce that the valve
may have a problem.

Ed: could you comment on one other thing, if you wouldn't mind, from a CORGI
POV:

First thing he asked for was the boiler instructions, which I found (this
isn't my house, so I was lucky there).

Unfortunately, the instructions for the fire were not included and I
couldn't find them.

He said he didn't know where to place the smoke match on that fire, so he
didn't appear to manage to complete a smoke test (the one effort he tried
had smoke coming back out into the room). I should add that his smoke test
of the main burner had clearly proven to me that the chimney was fine.

No one had previously asked me to ensure instructions were available, but
the company receptionist did say after the job, to me, that I should have
had the instructions available and it was a CORGI requirement. Is that true
or false? Would you expect a CORGI registered person to need instructions
to conduct a smoke test on a gas fire?

Skipping to the end, I rang up the company after he left, who I have had
excellent results with on two previous occasions, and disputed the time I
was charged as it seemed to me that this chap was wasting a lot of time
through lack of experience.

I'm now wondering, if he issued a landlord's cert (I paid for one, as I
thought it might be useful when selling the house) and the cert states the
installation is safe, but there is in fact a valve in a dangerous
condition, then I should raise this, first with the company, then with
CORGI.

How would you recommend I proceed? I initially reckoned that I've been
charged for time spent faffing, but I'm now thinking worse...

On a minor point, is it acceptable to perform leak tests with a mug of
customer supplied Fairy liquid+water? I thought they used specialist
liquids like Leek-Seek or similar? That's a minor point, but I'm trying to
form a picture here.

Cheers,

Tim

coughed up some electrons that declared:


Hi Tim
If as you say your boiler is a late 90's model then is is most likely
a Bermuda 552 or 401 model, these models are fitted with the Honeywell
multi functional gas control valve V4600C with a grey round push
....

Hi Martin,

Just come back from the house. Turns out it's a 57/4M, but the valve is
still a V4600C AFAICS from google. Possibly because the installation date
was actually around 2000 or 2001 - I found some documentary evidence
suggesting this. Fitted with a VP3 fire front.

Upon further investigation, the valve is most definitely shot. Here's what I
did:

1) Turn on system, light pilot.

2) Engage heating demand.

3) Wait. And wait... 2 mins later or so:

4) Burner starts to fire up. But in a very half-arsed way. Over the course
of the next minute, I can actually hear the flame becoming stronger until
it reached normal levels. This seems to concur with your suggestion that
the diaphragm is hardened.

5) After a while, go out, come back in. Smell gas. A localised cloud from
the fire to about 4 feet away. Not very strong, but unmistakable.

6) Shut down gas at meter, of course. And isolate boiler electrically.

I suspect that the valve is opening so slowly, that a certain amount of gas
escaped before the burner flow comes up to a level that it wants to ignite.
That's the only theory I have. Anyway, I'm now very p*ssed off with the
fitter, so I propose to stop the cheque and get one of the firm's more
senior engineers down on site to have a look. As to whether I give them a
bollocking or take it to CORGI I haven't yet decided (open to suggestions).

I've lost patience because I, as a layman, specifically queried the state of
the valve. It's not like it was an understandable oversight. So I have a
landlord's cert on a potentially unsafe installation - should get
interesting...

Cheers

Tim

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:38:05 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:

Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:41:57 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:



Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might
the diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

Yes it's dangerous but not for the reason you state. That the gas is not
(fully) controlled is the issue.

Which I guess may potentially lead to the same outcome, say if the pilot
light blew out, then the main burner was fed via the faulty valve. Ouch,
now I'm scared. The gas goes off as soon as I get down there today.


I'm surprised the fitter I had didn't know any of this (I did ask) - he
seemed not very experienced, but that's another issue and I'm taking that
up with his employer...

This does seem surprising since controls such as these are a part of
the core syllabus of training for registered fitters.

I'm generally surprised. I'm a layman WRT gas, but:

When the fitter couldn't get the burner to fire, there was much head
scratching and wondering if the controller was supplying any power to the
boiler.

I suggested it should be as the controller was on, (manual call for heat and
neons lit up), and both the tank and hall thermostats were set to max.
Heating had been working days prior.

He then wondered aloud about the boiler thermostat. After about 10 minutes
of fiddling, I got bored with waiting for him to do what seemed obvious,
ie. go and get his multimeter and start testing. So I broke my policy of
non interference with professionals-at-work and went and got mine and
offered assistance, which was happily received.

Didn't take me long to prove to him that there was power to the boiler. I
then proved the boiler stat was working correctly then prove power to the
valve. It's not a complicated valve, 2 terminals L+N.

Despite this, every now and then he kept wondering if it was the programmer
or wiring or something else. I politely pointed out that if the valve was
powered, but not operating, then it was reasonable to deduce that the valve
may have a problem.

Ed: could you comment on one other thing, if you wouldn't mind, from a CORGI
POV:

First thing he asked for was the boiler instructions, which I found (this
isn't my house, so I was lucky there).

Unfortunately, the instructions for the fire were not included and I
couldn't find them.

He said he didn't know where to place the smoke match on that fire, so he
didn't appear to manage to complete a smoke test (the one effort he tried
had smoke coming back out into the room). I should add that his smoke test
of the main burner had clearly proven to me that the chimney was fine.

No one had previously asked me to ensure instructions were available, but
the company receptionist did say after the job, to me, that I should have
had the instructions available and it was a CORGI requirement. Is that true
or false? Would you expect a CORGI registered person to need instructions
to conduct a smoke test on a gas fire?

Skipping to the end, I rang up the company after he left, who I have had
excellent results with on two previous occasions, and disputed the time I
was charged as it seemed to me that this chap was wasting a lot of time
through lack of experience.

I'm now wondering, if he issued a landlord's cert (I paid for one, as I
thought it might be useful when selling the house) and the cert states the
installation is safe, but there is in fact a valve in a dangerous
condition, then I should raise this, first with the company, then with
CORGI.

How would you recommend I proceed? I initially reckoned that I've been
charged for time spent faffing, but I'm now thinking worse...

On a minor point, is it acceptable to perform leak tests with a mug of
customer supplied Fairy liquid+water? I thought they used specialist
liquids like Leek-Seek or similar? That's a minor point, but I'm trying to
form a picture here.


The guy may have never met a back boiler before if he was fairly young.
However identification of the function of these types of control is in the
core syllabus.

Somehow he is not up to the job.

Did he have a CORGI card?
Or was he simply working for a registered firm who were passing him off as
a registered fitter whilst he was in fact unqualified?
This is not unknown.

Far be it from me to drop the company in the doo-doo but I can entirely
sympathise that you have a grievance.

It is said that you can almost get an MOT for a car without an engine.
It is similar that you could get exam passes in gas fitting whilst having
almost no diagnostic skills. However knowing how a multifunction valve
works is in the core syllabus, leaving it in a dangerous state breaches a
stack of regs.

Even if I did not have the labels/forms to hand to condemn the boiler I
would at least have unscrewed the t/couple and/or disconnected the mains
connector and/or removed the fuse from the supply, aswell as informing you
not to use the boiler.


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

Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the reply.


The guy may have never met a back boiler before if he was fairly young.
However identification of the function of these types of control is in the
core syllabus.

More in the mid 30's. Quite possibly he's just gone into the gas profession
from something else.

Somehow he is not up to the job.

Did he have a CORGI card?

Cardinal sin - I don't know. I'd used the firm (local family business) twice
before and had excellent engineers/fitters so I didn't ask. The firm say he
is registered though.

Or was he simply working for a registered firm who were passing him off as
a registered fitter whilst he was in fact unqualified?
This is not unknown.
Far be it from me to drop the company in the doo-doo but I can entirely
sympathise that you have a grievance.

I don't like dumping folk in the cr*p, but I have to consider: what if I
were little old granny Smith and didn't question the chap's ability? If I'm
right, he needs picking up. If I'm wrong, I'm prepared to eat my hat.

I had the fitter on the phone asking me not to get CORGI involved. Had the
office manager on the phone too, chewing my ear off for daring to question
the competence of her staff.

If she had had taken the line that I'd made a serious allegation and could
one of their more experienced staff come out and have a look, I might have
let the firm deal with it. Once people start trying to bully me into
submission, I tend to become more suspicious. As it happened, between them,
they convinced me that I should get CORGI involved. My final take is that
if they did things right, they shouldn't have anything to worry about from
an inspection.

It is said that you can almost get an MOT for a car without an engine.

I know the place - it was in Surrey, in the early 90's. MOT in 15 minutes,
engine still cold, car unmoved. Long since closed down...

It is similar that you could get exam passes in gas fitting whilst having
almost no diagnostic skills. However knowing how a multifunction valve
works is in the core syllabus, leaving it in a dangerous state breaches a
stack of regs.

Even if I did not have the labels/forms to hand to condemn the boiler I
would at least have unscrewed the t/couple and/or disconnected the mains
connector and/or removed the fuse from the supply, aswell as informing you
not to use the boiler.

I wish he had. The house is unoccupied and it's just supplying background
heat to avoid damp problems. I would have been the most co-operative
customer in the world if he's asked me to shut it down.

As it happens, after the couple of phone calls above, I did phone CORGI. I
explained the problem, and they decided to put me through to a technical
department.

I explained the situation again and asked them if I was over-reacting. The
opinion from them was as here, that the valve was clearly exhibiting
non-normal behaviour, that the fitter should have performed more tests as
I'd mentioned the possibility of having smelt gas, and yes, I should file a
complaint.

Nothing to do now but wait.

Cheers

Tim

"Tim Southerwood" wrote in message
...
Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the reply.


The guy may have never met a back boiler before if he was fairly young.
However identification of the function of these types of control is in
the
core syllabus.

More in the mid 30's. Quite possibly he's just gone into the gas
profession
from something else.

Somehow he is not up to the job.

Did he have a CORGI card?

Cardinal sin - I don't know. I'd used the firm (local family business)
twice
before and had excellent engineers/fitters so I didn't ask. The firm say
he
is registered though.

Or was he simply working for a registered firm who were passing him off
as
a registered fitter whilst he was in fact unqualified?
This is not unknown.
Far be it from me to drop the company in the doo-doo but I can entirely
sympathise that you have a grievance.

I don't like dumping folk in the cr*p, but I have to consider: what if I
were little old granny Smith and didn't question the chap's ability? If
I'm
right, he needs picking up. If I'm wrong, I'm prepared to eat my hat.

I had the fitter on the phone asking me not to get CORGI involved. Had the
office manager on the phone too, chewing my ear off for daring to question
the competence of her staff.

If she had had taken the line that I'd made a serious allegation and could
one of their more experienced staff come out and have a look, I might have
let the firm deal with it. Once people start trying to bully me into
submission, I tend to become more suspicious. As it happened, between
them,
they convinced me that I should get CORGI involved. My final take is that
if they did things right, they shouldn't have anything to worry about from
an inspection.

It is said that you can almost get an MOT for a car without an engine.

I know the place - it was in Surrey, in the early 90's. MOT in 15 minutes,
engine still cold, car unmoved. Long since closed down...

It is similar that you could get exam passes in gas fitting whilst
having
almost no diagnostic skills. However knowing how a multifunction valve
works is in the core syllabus, leaving it in a dangerous state breaches
a
stack of regs.

Even if I did not have the labels/forms to hand to condemn the boiler I
would at least have unscrewed the t/couple and/or disconnected the mains
connector and/or removed the fuse from the supply, aswell as informing
you
not to use the boiler.

I wish he had. The house is unoccupied and it's just supplying background
heat to avoid damp problems. I would have been the most co-operative
customer in the world if he's asked me to shut it down.

As it happens, after the couple of phone calls above, I did phone CORGI. I
explained the problem, and they decided to put me through to a technical
department.

I explained the situation again and asked them if I was over-reacting. The
opinion from them was as here, that the valve was clearly exhibiting
non-normal behaviour, that the fitter should have performed more tests as
I'd mentioned the possibility of having smelt gas, and yes, I should file
a
complaint.

Nothing to do now but wait.

and wait.....
and
wait.....

and w........

and .........

.......

Heliotrope Smith coughed up some electrons that declared:


"Tim Southerwood" wrote in message
...

Nothing to do now but wait.

and wait.....
and
wait.....

and w........

and .........

......

Heh. I hope not. CORGI claim 10 days. Hope they meant earth-days.