I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

Many thanks!

Matt

wrote in message
...
I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

Many thanks!

Matt

Googling gives

http://www.worcester-bosch.co.uk/hom...uing?flue_id=2

Which confirms:

The concentric flue system must be inclined at 3º (50mm per metre) from the
appliance, to allow condensate to drain back into the boiler.

In article
,
wrote:
There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

Think they're all like that - to prevent condensate dripping out of the
flue.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

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

wrote in message
...
I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

Many thanks!

Matt

Read the instructions/installation guides left for you. It is correct.
Why do complete idiots always ask such questions. What would you
do if loads of people said it was wrong? Call the man back and say
it was because people you don't know on the internet said so?
Please use common sense.

t

Read the instructions/installation guides left for you. It is correct.
Why do complete idiots always ask such questions. What would you
do if loads of people said it was wrong? Call the man back and say
it was because people you don't know on the internet said so?
Please use common sense.


why flame someone for asking a question, that's what the newsgroups are
about, its only obvious if you know the answer
--
Kevin R
Reply address works

Ian wrote:
wrote in message
...
I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

Read the instructions/installation guides left for you. It is correct.
Why do complete idiots always ask such questions. What would you
do if loads of people said it was wrong? Call the man back and say
it was because people you don't know on the internet said so?

Oh come on, it's a reasonable question if you don't know anything about
boiler installations. It's not exactly among the daftest of questions
asked here, now is it?

And in any case, if it had been me and "loads of people" in uk.d-i-y
said something was wrong, then that would be good enough for me to raise
concern... it may have escaped your notice but the (sensible) replies
received were accurate.

David

On Oct 24, 7:13*pm, "Ian" wrote:
wrote in message

...



I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? *Or is this the way it should be? *I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. *So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

Many thanks!

Matt

Read the instructions/installation guides left for you. *It is correct.
Why do complete idiots always ask such questions. *What would you
do if loads of people said it was wrong? *Call the man back and say
it was because people you don't know on the internet said so?
Please use common sense.

I could print the entire instruction leaflet left for me which would
show you that there is nothing about the flue in there, but I doubt
you'd be bothered to read it.

I asked a simple question which no-one was under any obligation to
answer. I asked it because I didn't know, and none of the information
left for me contained the answer. I hadn't tracked it down on the
internet either, and as I have never installed a boiler in my life,
and the previous flue appeared horizontal I thought I'd ask a group of
generally knowledgeable people (politely), and if I got an answer I'd
consider what was said.

I don't have to "know" the people that post to uk.d-i-y to know that
a) they are knowledgeable and b) they are usually friendly and
helpful. For example, see Dave P's response - all that I needed to
know so that I could rest assured that what looked like something
wasn't fitted properly was actually the job being done properly.

So, insofar as I'm being referred to as an "idiot" by you, get stuffed
- if you have nothing useful to say, why bother typing.

To others who have been helpful, many thanks.

Matt

In article ,
writes:
I could print the entire instruction leaflet left for me which would
show you that there is nothing about the flue in there, but I doubt

It will be in the installation/servicing instructions.
It is a legal requirement that these are handed to you
by the installer. You should keep them and pass them on
to any new owner of the boiler in the future.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article
,
wrote:
Read the instructions/installation guides left for you. It is correct.
Why do complete idiots always ask such questions. What would you
do if loads of people said it was wrong? Call the man back and say
it was because people you don't know on the internet said so?
Please use common sense.

I could print the entire instruction leaflet left for me which would
show you that there is nothing about the flue in there, but I doubt
you'd be bothered to read it.

Pay no attention to Mr 'Beale'. He's just a troll. Check Google for his
other posts.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

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

wrote:

I don't have to "know" the people that post to uk.d-i-y to know that
a) they are knowledgeable and b) they are usually friendly and
helpful. For example, see Dave P's response - all that I needed to
know so that I could rest assured that what looked like something
wasn't fitted properly was actually the job being done properly.

The fitter ought to have left the install and service manual as well as
the user instructions (note some boiler makers seem to place them at the
back of the user guide - so depending on which side of the book you
start from as to what you get!)

IIUC most if not all condensing boilers should have the fluw installed
like this.

If rain were to get into the boiler, then it ought to get fed out via
the condensate drain along with the condensate - there are after all
designed to collect liquid from this source.

So, insofar as I'm being referred to as an "idiot" by you, get stuffed
- if you have nothing useful to say, why bother typing.

Don't worry about Ian, he seems to be a waste of good oxygen but
obviously likes acting like a complete ****. He is the same on every
group I have seen him on.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

Normally, I wouldn't post a "me too" like this, but we have just been
through the same process and are still recovering from the by-products
of CH replacement, with the whole house still in chaos after moving
stuff to give access to pipework, radiators etc.

I have all the boiler paperwork, and have only had time to glance
through it, but could well have posted here to ask the original
question. As a long-term news-group junkie (although only recently
here), it's usually easy to sift the helpful and sensible answers from
the others, as it was in this case.

There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?
--
Bill

In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.

It's water vapour - not steam.

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

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

In article ,
Bill writes:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing

You can't see any steam from it - steam is invisible.
You see the water droplets as a result of condensing the steam.

fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Bill writes:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing

You can't see any steam from it - steam is invisible.
You see the water droplets as a result of condensing the steam.

fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?

That's why I put 'steam' in single quotes. What I was thinking was that
there might be more real steam in the output than there should be, and
that this steam was condensing into what I see after it left the flue.

What comes out does feel quite hot, so I'd have thought that a further
heat exchanger stage might be worthwhile. If the condensing boiler were
not condensing every bit of steam, this could also capture the residual
latent heat. Are there such things as add-on heat exchangers or would
this have to be a bodge it and see winter project?
--
Bill

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.

It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Oct 24, 10:40*pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:

I could print the entire instruction leaflet left for me which would
show you that there is nothing about the flue in there, but I doubt

It will be in the installation/servicing instructions.
It is a legal requirement that these are handed to you
by the installer. You should keep them and pass them on
to any new owner of the boiler in the future.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

You're right, of course, that the installation details etc were handed
over. But I am a humble consumer, so I haven't read the installation
instructions - taking the view that I don't need to know the details
or wiring diagrams, though possibly Ian was slightly correct in that
there would be reference to the flue fitting in there.

In fact, the consumer's usage instructions are very sparse in this
particular boiler - it doesn't even tell you what the digital
temperature read out is actually measuring, or what to look out for
(apart from error codes, obviously).

Anyway, I'm resting assured now that the fitting is right (as I
suspected) and I shall steer clear of young Ian in future.

Matt

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Bill writes:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing

You can't see any steam from it - steam is invisible.
You see the water droplets as a result of condensing the steam.

fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?

That's why I put 'steam' in single quotes. What I was thinking was that
there might be more real steam in the output than there should be, and
that this steam was condensing into what I see after it left the flue.

What comes out does feel quite hot, so I'd have thought that a further
heat exchanger stage might be worthwhile. If the condensing boiler were
not condensing every bit of steam, this could also capture the residual
latent heat. Are there such things as add-on heat exchangers or would this
have to be a bodge it and see winter project?
--
Bill

Some boilers have optional kist to manage the plume

"Easy to fit solution for the problem of plume providing increased siting
flexibility during installation
Plume is a vapour trail that is seen coming from the front, back or sides of
a house when the flue gas temperature drops below dew point. Plume is not
harmful but can be viewed as unsightly and a potential nuisance if it drifts
across neighbours properties or public areas. This is why Glow-worm provides
the Plume Management Kit. "

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article , Chewbacca
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

You tell that to anyone who drives a kettle
--
Tony Sayer

In article , John
scribeth thus

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Bill writes:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing

You can't see any steam from it - steam is invisible.
You see the water droplets as a result of condensing the steam.

fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?

That's why I put 'steam' in single quotes. What I was thinking was that
there might be more real steam in the output than there should be, and
that this steam was condensing into what I see after it left the flue.

What comes out does feel quite hot, so I'd have thought that a further
heat exchanger stage might be worthwhile. If the condensing boiler were
not condensing every bit of steam, this could also capture the residual
latent heat. Are there such things as add-on heat exchangers or would this
have to be a bodge it and see winter project?
--
Bill

Some boilers have optional kist to manage the plume

"Easy to fit solution for the problem of plume providing increased siting
flexibility during installation
Plume is a vapour trail that is seen coming from the front, back or sides of
a house when the flue gas temperature drops below dew point. Plume is not
harmful but can be viewed as unsightly and a potential nuisance
if it drifts
across neighbours properties or public areas.

Why is it a potential nuisance?..

Just how much of a plume do some of these old boilers make?..


This is why Glow-worm provides
the Plume Management Kit. "



--
Tony Sayer

In message , Rod
writes
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were
condensing fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...
Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it
is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

Or rather, people need to be less lazy in their use of language

.... like people who talk about "dry joints" when they mean cracked
joints

--
geoff

Rod wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were
condensing fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.


I agree with you, this is the problem with a 'living language' like
English, meanings change with time. Another good example of this is
Quantum, in it's original scientific meaning it is the smallest possible
step change in energy levels, however in everyday use it means a huge
step change.

Chewbacca wrote:
Rod wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were
condensing fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...
Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.
I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.


I agree with you, this is the problem with a 'living language' like
English, meanings change with time. Another good example of this is
Quantum, in it's original scientific meaning it is the smallest possible
step change in energy levels, however in everyday use it means a huge
step change.

A quantum of solar? :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Bill writes:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing

You can't see any steam from it - steam is invisible.
You see the water droplets as a result of condensing the steam.

fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust. Are we losing huge
amounts of latent heat here? Is a second stage condensing process worth
looking into?

That's why I put 'steam' in single quotes. What I was thinking was that
there might be more real steam in the output than there should be, and
that this steam was condensing into what I see after it left the flue.

That will happen. The flue gas will be emitted at about 5C hotter
than the return water temperature, which is going to be about 55C
if the boiler is setup properly. It will be 100% humidity. When it
mixes with the outdoor air at, say, 10C, it will cool and not be
able to hold as much moisture, so a little more will condense out.
Exactly the same thing happens when you breath out in cold air and
you see a mist.

What comes out does feel quite hot, so I'd have thought that a further
heat exchanger stage might be worthwhile.

What temperature is your boiler set to?
Maybe you are running it too hot to be running in condensing mode.
If you have a thermometer on the return temperature, what is it?

If the condensing boiler were
not condensing every bit of steam, this could also capture the residual
latent heat. Are there such things as add-on heat exchangers or would
this have to be a bodge it and see winter project?

You can always extract more. You could put a unit on the flue and
condensate drain which captures and freezes the water, and thus
also extract the latent heat from that. It's really a question of
where you sensibly stop. The heat output from freezing the
condensate would be difficult to use effectively.

Running the boiler at the lowest temperature you can get away with
is realistically the best you can do. I run mine at 45C flow 40C
return, but I have radiators suitably sized to heat the house with
the water at that temperature.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Some boilers have optional kist to manage the plume

"Easy to fit solution for the problem of plume providing increased
siting flexibility during installation Plume is a vapour trail that is
seen coming from the front, back or sides of a house when the flue gas
temperature drops below dew point. Plume is not harmful but can be
viewed as unsightly and a potential nuisance if it drifts across
neighbours properties or public areas.

Why is it a potential nuisance?..

On a cold damp day they could block the view from a window.

Just how much of a plume do some of these old boilers make?..

Not old boilers. Modern condensing types.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

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

In article ,
geoff writes:
Or rather, people need to be less lazy in their use of language

... like people who talk about "dry joints" when they mean cracked
joints

Dry joints are probably less addictive.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
geoff writes:
Or rather, people need to be less lazy in their use of language

... like people who talk about "dry joints" when they mean cracked
joints

Dry joints are probably less addictive.

I wouldn't know, I've never tried snorting or injecting them


--
geoff

Chewbacca wrote:
Rod wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were
condensing fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...
Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.
I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.


I agree with you, this is the problem with a 'living language' like
English, meanings change with time. Another good example of this is
Quantum, in it's original scientific meaning it is the smallest possible
step change in energy levels, however in everyday use it means a huge
step change.

That one had never occurred to me before actually - when/how did that
happen!?

David

Big snip

Running the boiler at the lowest temperature you can get away with
is realistically the best you can do. I run mine at 45C flow 40C
return, but I have radiators suitably sized to heat the house with
the water at that temperature.


Que comments about legonella (spelling??) growing in the hot tank at
temps that low.......

In article ,
Chewbacca writes:
Big snip

Running the boiler at the lowest temperature you can get away with
is realistically the best you can do. I run mine at 45C flow 40C
return, but I have radiators suitably sized to heat the house with
the water at that temperature.

Que comments about legonella (spelling??) growing in the hot tank at
temps that low.......

That's the central heating temperature, not hot water.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Lobster
saying something like:

Another good example of this is
Quantum, in it's original scientific meaning it is the smallest possible
step change in energy levels, however in everyday use it means a huge
step change.

That one had never occurred to me before actually - when/how did that
happen!?

Istr some bloody politician using it years ago.
The latest Bond movie doesn't help, but whether it's used as tiny or
huge, who knows?

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Some boilers have optional kist to manage the plume

"Easy to fit solution for the problem of plume providing increased
siting flexibility during installation Plume is a vapour trail that is
seen coming from the front, back or sides of a house when the flue gas
temperature drops below dew point. Plume is not harmful but can be
viewed as unsightly and a potential nuisance if it drifts across
neighbours properties or public areas.

Why is it a potential nuisance?..

On a cold damp day they could block the view from a window.

Just how much of a plume do some of these old boilers make?..

Not old boilers. Modern condensing types.


Summat about old steam engines call kettles more often than not)....

tho IIRC they call them "engines a vapour" or similar en France..
--
Tony Sayer

Rod wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article , Bill
wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's
a condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it
were condensing fully, surely we should see no visible
exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it
is invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard.
Above this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually
this is tiny particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as
water droplets - that are so small they float about in the air.
Being hot water they tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using
that approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it
a tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam",
then perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to
accord with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.

That's probably why the word "steam" is used for "what we all call
steam" isn't it: originally (and indeed, still) a steam engine is an
engine which is powered by steam, but in common parlance became one
which produces copious quantities of "steam".

FWIW, this from the Oxford English Dictionary

steam, n.
6. a. The vapour into which water is converted when heated. In
popular language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air
in the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute
globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of gaseous
water and air. (Also sometimes applied to the vapour arising from other
liquids when heated.) In modern scientific and technical language,
applied only to water in the form of an invisible gas.
The invisible ‘steam’, in the modern scientific sense, is, when its
temperature is lowered, converted into the white vapour called ‘steam’
in popular language, and this under continued cooling, becomes ‘water’
in the liquid form.


So it would appear that the lexiconographers have already taken heed of
your comment!

David

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Lobster
saying something like:

Another good example of this is
Quantum, in it's original scientific meaning it is the smallest possible
step change in energy levels, however in everyday use it means a huge
step change.
That one had never occurred to me before actually - when/how did that
happen!?

Istr some bloody politician using it years ago.
The latest Bond movie doesn't help, but whether it's used as tiny or
huge, who knows?

Sinclair used it back in the early '80s for the QL[1]... used to amuse
me then - the smallest possible advance - anything less would be
standing still ;-)


[1] Not a bad attempt at a low cost "sort of" 32 bit machine (used a 68K
derivative processor that still had 32 bit registers, but an external 8
bit architecture). Shame they made the physical construction so crap.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Lobster wrote:
Rod wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article , Bill
wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's
a condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it
were condensing fully, surely we should see no visible
exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it
is invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard.
Above this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually
this is tiny particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as
water droplets - that are so small they float about in the air.
Being hot water they tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using
that approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it
a tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam",
then perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to
accord with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.

That's probably why the word "steam" is used for "what we all call
steam" isn't it: originally (and indeed, still) a steam engine is an
engine which is powered by steam, but in common parlance became one
which produces copious quantities of "steam".

FWIW, this from the Oxford English Dictionary

steam, n.
6. a. The vapour into which water is converted when heated. In
popular language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air
in the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute
globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of gaseous
water and air. (Also sometimes applied to the vapour arising from other
liquids when heated.) In modern scientific and technical language,
applied only to water in the form of an invisible gas.
The invisible ‘steam’, in the modern scientific sense, is, when its
temperature is lowered, converted into the white vapour called ‘steam’
in popular language, and this under continued cooling, becomes ‘water’
in the liquid form.


So it would appear that the lexiconographers have already taken heed of
your comment!

David

Thank you!

Also see:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steam

The picture on the right ("Steam rising from the street grates.") seems
to go down the same direction - but whether out of ignorance,
carelessness or something else, who can tell? :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:59:07 -0700, matthew.larkin wrote:

I've just had a new WB greenstar 30CDi fitted, which I'm pleased with
in terms of operation.

There's just one part of the installation which I've noticed looks a
little odd to me - the flue on the outside appears to be ever so
slightly inclined upwards - probably no more than 5 degrees off
horizontal in truth.

Should I be concerned? Or is this the way it should be? I'm
imagining that some rainwater could come through there, but I also
imagine that the flue is designed to handle some condensation in there
so water ingress ought not to be a problem.

I will obviously get the bloke back if it isn't right, but he could
just tell me that's the way its supposed to be, and I'd not be able to
contradict him. So I'd like some guidance first if possible.

If you were to Read The Friendly Manual (which came with the boiler[1])
you'll see it instructs the installer to position the flue so it slopes
back to the boiler at an angle of about 3 degrees, so that condensation in
the flue runs back into the boiler and is collected with the the
condensate produced in the boiler itself and is discharged into the
condensate waste instead of dripping out of the flue onto whatever lies
below.

[1] if your installer hasn't left the boiler and flue installation
manuals with you *then* get him back.

--
John Stumbles

My other sigs are posh

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:03:48 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Dry joints are probably less addictive.

Less addictive than not addictive at all? Though I suppose it depends what
you put in your joints ;-)

--
John Stumbles

Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:05:41 +0100, Bill wrote:

What comes out does feel quite hot, so I'd have thought that a further
heat exchanger stage might be worthwhile. If the condensing boiler were
not condensing every bit of steam, this could also capture the residual
latent heat. Are there such things as add-on heat exchangers or would
this have to be a bodge it and see winter project?

There is one on the market: I think Alpha make it. I presume it may only
be used with their own boilers since a boiler's flue is an integral
part of the installation and using a non-approved component would
make the installation illegal. So if Alpha's unit only works with Alpha
boilers one wonders why they don't just build it into their boilers rather
than selling it as an expensive extra. I suspect the answer is in P. T.
Barnum's famous dictum :-)

As for "worthwhile", as Andrew Gabriel points out in another post it's
a question of diminishing returns: today's condensing boilers are a good
compromise between efficiency and cost and complexity.

--
John Stumbles

The astronomer married a star

In message , John Stumbles
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:03:48 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Dry joints are probably less addictive.

Less addictive than not addictive at all? Though I suppose it depends what
you put in your joints ;-)


Joints flux you up

--
geoff