"Tim S" wrote in message
...
YAPH coughed up some electrons that declared:

some sleeving where the pipework went through the
wall as Not to Current Standards since (as he explained to me) he
couldn't
identify the material used for the sleeve so couldn't be sure it
complied
with the regs.

Silly question: the sleeving isn't there to carry gas, but rather to
protect
the pipe surely?

Cheers

Tim

Both.

It must be capable of containing or distributing gas.

When a pipe goes across a cavity the sleeve is meant
to prevent any gas escaping into that cavity and building
up into a dangerous situation.

One end of the sleeve will be left open to carry away any
leaks (usually to the out side air.

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , BigWallop
wrote


The Sparks shouted about the Part P building control requirement, but I
think that gas installations and alterations should also be policed in
the
same way now. And it's cost cutting measures that are causing this to
happen.

Have you considered it's the price charged by a Corgi or Part P
registered companies that is causing the problem in the first place?
When the cost of registration is so high it leaves plenty of scope for
the cowboys[1] to easily undercut the price.

More regulation will not stop the problem. It only works when
_everybody_ is prepared to obey the rules. Offer someone a cheaper
price, cash in hand, no questions asked and there will be a lot of
takers.

Programs like rouge traders only go to prove that the threat of being
caught out is no deterrent. They often have the same people trading
under different names and even when it results in a prosecution the
presenters proudly state their actions resulted in the cowboy getting a
few hour of community service.

[1]
According to the Corgi site, even their officially registered members
should be treated as cowboys if the are doing work 'off the book' for
friends and relatives.

It is CORGI registerd operatives that cannot do work do work for pay
unless they are CORGI registered in their own right.



--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:14:45 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's interesting that some seem to have invented the everlasting
chemical reaction? Usually any residual corrosion caused by excess flux
will come to an end long before it eats through the pipe. Even extremely
corrosive active flux types only used on water pipes don't seem to etch
in very far if not wiped off. Over many many years.

Usually? Well that's OK then :-)

In any case But de Law is de Law. (As in de Law of de Land, not de Law of
Science).



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Life is nature's way of keeping meat fresh

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:23:10 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

A strict interpretation would be that the sleeve must be steel or
copper. A looser interpretation would be that the sleeve must be a
material that COULD carry gas but MIGHT not be used for that purpose.

I've been meaning to blag a bit of yellow PE when I next see a roadside
gas replacement going on. No-one could argue that it's unsuitable for
carrying gas, it'd identify the pipe it's sleeving as gas, and it'd not be
likely to itself corrode in the wall as a copper sleeve could do.



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Pessimists are never disappointed

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:52:52 +0000, BigWallop wrote:

The bit that is getting me, is that all the correct parts are there, but
in the wrong place and order. How and why? :-)

Eric: I'm playing the right notes. But not necessarily in the right
order!

--
John Stumbles

87.5% of statistics are made up

Heliotrope Smith coughed up some electrons that declared:

It must be capable of containing or distributing gas.

When a pipe goes across a cavity the sleeve is meant
to prevent any gas escaping into that cavity and building
up into a dangerous situation.

One end of the sleeve will be left open to carry away any
leaks (usually to the out side air.

Although it's more of a backup, rather than normal mode of operation.

I can't see a little bit of gas leakage (which is itself unlikely in a short
length of continuous pipe) permeating through, say, a bit of thick 40mm
plastic waste pipe into the cavity before rolling on out the other end to
free air.

What I'm getting at, is whilst these rules are written with the best of
intentions, aren't we worrying a bit too much?

I can present counterarguments why sleeving in copper or iron is prone to
failu

a) The copper sleeve will be at as much risk of chemical attack by the wall
as the original pipe;

b) Copper and iron is a bad combination as there is a risk of dissimilar
metal corrosion with the copper being sacrificial.

Not to mention possible friction wear as Andrew mentioned.

I'm not questioning your excellent knowledge of the rule book, but stepping
back and using common sense and a bit of basic science, it seems to me that
a bit of PVC or PET pipe, gas approved or not, is actually the best thing
to use as a sleeve, or if using an iron sleeve, then denso round the copper
would be a good idea to avoid corrosion and friction.

Cheers

Tim

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:17:24 +0000, Tim S wrote:

YAPH coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:46:21 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

Take a look at.

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

I can count 3 faults on that installation!


Please do tell


Heh!

Anybody else?

:-)



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

A stitch in time saves nine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

YAPH coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:23:10 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

A strict interpretation would be that the sleeve must be steel or
copper. A looser interpretation would be that the sleeve must be a
material that COULD carry gas but MIGHT not be used for that purpose.

I've been meaning to blag a bit of yellow PE when I next see a roadside
gas replacement going on. No-one could argue that it's unsuitable for
carrying gas, it'd identify the pipe it's sleeving as gas, and it'd not be
likely to itself corrode in the wall as a copper sleeve could do.




Good idea.

Actually, marking gas in the house would be good to (the odd wrap of yellow
PVC tape would be good!).

I found myself looking at several parallel runs of 22mm last week and I was
sure that two in particular were water. It was only when I followed them
down to the bowells of darkness behind the HW cylinder I could see one
joining what I know to be a gas pipe and even then you had to look really
hard to determine which of the two...

Would have been very easy to put my pipe cutter through the wrong one!

Cheers

Tim

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

I can count 3 faults on that installation!


Please do tell


Heh!

Anybody else?

The two parallel threaded joints into the barrel.

In article ,
YAPH wrote:
It's interesting that some seem to have invented the everlasting
chemical reaction? Usually any residual corrosion caused by excess
flux will come to an end long before it eats through the pipe. Even
extremely corrosive active flux types only used on water pipes don't
seem to etch in very far if not wiped off. Over many many years.

Usually? Well that's OK then :-)

In any case But de Law is de Law. (As in de Law of de Land, not de Law of
Science).

Think 'the law' has proved it needs questioning on things technical. Many
many times. Too many axes being ground when forming such legislation and
politicians and civil servants too thick to know when the wool is being
pulled over their eyes.

--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *

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

Ed Sirett wrote:

If the house was rented than annual inspections are mandatory. It would
almost certainly have been picked up.

Interesting. I had such an inspection recently, but I don't think the
guy pulled the cooker out from the wall to have a look at its
connection. I believe he did do a manometer leak test on the house as a
whole (I wasn't looking over his shoulder noting everything he did) but
AIUI the cooker you showed wasn't actually leaking yet.

Pete

"YAPH" wrote in message
...


I had to walk away from fitting a hob this week because it didn't have the
manufacturer's instructions (or even a data plate) and was missing
any fixing clamps. According to the customer (who'd bought it on the
interweb) the MIs (which he's getting the seller to send) say that the hob
is secured by the sealing strips. Sounds dodgy to me, but if that's what
it says in the MIs then that's OK.


It sounds so dodgy that I wouldn't have bought it let alone fixed it if it
didn't have a mechanical fixing.

However if I'd fitted it like that in
the absence of instructions to that effect and there'd been any comeback
I'd have had the book thrown at me.


Even if you follow the instructions there is still a duty of care on your
part.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...

Would have been very easy to put my pipe cutter through the wrong one!

Well don't try and fix it or do anything like turning the gas off if you
aren't corgi registered.
You wouldn't want to get into any more trouble. ;-)

At least gas doesn't cause stains.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
YAPH coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:46:21 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

Take a look at.

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

I can count 3 faults on that installation!


Please do tell

My uneducated list would be:

a) The wrong way round hose, obviously

b) The unsecured pipe at the other end as previously mentioned

c) But what's c?
Is it that the weight of the gas hose will have a tendency to undo the
connection on the back of the cooker; or the other end being jointed with
what looks like hemp and green compound?

Looking forward to finding out

The bayonet should be fitted so nothing can drop in.
The wrong type of seals are on the thread (the ptfe isn't thick enough to
seal the threads properly).
I doesn't look neat enough.
It wasn't obvious that it was the wrong way around from the first picture.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:17:53 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

The two parallel threaded joints into the barrel.

Possibly - I wasn't thinking of that.

I'm looking at the nut on the pipe that descends from the back of the
cooker. It looks like the arrangement where the end of the pipe is flared
into a flange and the nut is loose on the pipe and, when tightened into an
appropriate fitting, pushes the flange into the fitting to form the seal,
using a fibre washer. The joint therefore doesn't seal on the thread and
the PTFE tape in the picture suggests a cowboy attempt to seal the
joint by throwing tape at it.

The wispy bits of PTFE between the two brass fittings looks like water
grade tape, not the much ticker gas tape. (There was an example of
this on the spot-the-bloomers test at my ACS assessment centre!)

Oh and there's that bayonet ... :-)

--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
Tits like coconuts

Tim S wrote:

BES description is "Paste flux for copper and brass fittings for water,
heating and gas services. British Gas plc, WRc plc approved."

Personally I can't see many standard fluxes eating right through dry copper
pipe (it's quite thick) in any reasonable timescale...

but...

The reason I asked, is that, if I did solder a gas pipe, I'd rather do it by
the book, even if the book is a bit *nal

Indeed. The risk with copper will be slim. Something like the stainless
anaconda pipes adjacent to the meter are however far more vulnerable
to stray flux damage.

Erm, yes. Silly typo. Next time I'll just say "leaded plumbing solder", as
opposed to unleaded.

Good point actually, I presume lead free is also ok for gas these days,
but is there an official position on it?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

YAPH wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:17:53 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

The two parallel threaded joints into the barrel.

Possibly - I wasn't thinking of that.

I'm looking at the nut on the pipe that descends from the back of the
cooker. It looks like the arrangement where the end of the pipe is flared
into a flange and the nut is loose on the pipe and, when tightened into an
appropriate fitting, pushes the flange into the fitting to form the seal,
using a fibre washer. The joint therefore doesn't seal on the thread and
the PTFE tape in the picture suggests a cowboy attempt to seal the
joint by throwing tape at it.

The wispy bits of PTFE between the two brass fittings looks like water
grade tape, not the much ticker gas tape. (There was an example of
this on the spot-the-bloomers test at my ACS assessment centre!)

Oh and there's that bayonet ... :-)

and the elbow not being screwed to the wall...

and (although this might be the camera angle) no evidence of any anti
tilt bracket or chain

--
Cheers,

John.

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

dennis@home wrote:

"Ed Sirett" wrote:

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

Doesn't removing the bayonet turn off the gas?

It does, but only if the bayonet "socket" is on the supply side and the
bayonet "plug" is the appliance side.

Ed Sirett wrote:
Take a look at.

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

This was perhaps the most dangerous piece of gas fitting I have directly
seen to date. What was really concerning was that the bayonet had become
unlatched and was just the grip of a sticky O-ring away from a very large
escape of gas.

A Riddor will be submitted. There may be an investigation...


Someone mentioned fluxes and corrosion. All electronic fluxes are heat
activated types, since corrosion of the very thin pcb traces is a
critical issue.


NT

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:56:22 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

and the elbow not being screwed to the wall...

and (although this might be the camera angle) no evidence of any anti
tilt bracket or chain

Indeed: I was just talking about Ed's first picture, but you're spot on.



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Seagull Management
Management technique characterised by flying in, making a lot of noise,
crapping on everything, and then leaving.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:41:21 -0800, meow2222 wrote:

Someone mentioned fluxes and corrosion. All electronic fluxes are heat
activated types, since corrosion of the very thin pcb traces is a
critical issue.

They're probbaly still technically not allowed because they're not approved
for gas work :-( (De Law is De Law department.)



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Press any key to continue or any other key to exit

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Heliotrope Smith coughed up some electrons that declared:

It must be capable of containing or distributing gas.

When a pipe goes across a cavity the sleeve is meant
to prevent any gas escaping into that cavity and building
up into a dangerous situation.

One end of the sleeve will be left open to carry away any
leaks (usually to the out side air.

Although it's more of a backup, rather than normal mode of operation.

I can't see a little bit of gas leakage (which is itself unlikely in a
short
length of continuous pipe) permeating through, say, a bit of thick 40mm
plastic waste pipe into the cavity before rolling on out the other end to
free air.

What I'm getting at, is whilst these rules are written with the best of
intentions, aren't we worrying a bit too much?

I can present counterarguments why sleeving in copper or iron is prone to
failu

a) The copper sleeve will be at as much risk of chemical attack by the
wall
as the original pipe;

b) Copper and iron is a bad combination as there is a risk of dissimilar
metal corrosion with the copper being sacrificial.

As far as I know copper and iron is not a bad combination.

The problem is with copper and galvenised iron, this is where corrosion
can occor bettween dissimilar metals.

Not to mention possible friction wear as Andrew mentioned.

I'm not questioning your excellent knowledge of the rule book, but
stepping
back and using common sense and a bit of basic science, it seems to me
that
a bit of PVC or PET pipe, gas approved or not, is actually the best thing
to use as a sleeve, or if using an iron sleeve, then denso round the
copper
would be a good idea to avoid corrosion and friction.

Yes. the regulations do not rule out Polyethelene, PVC plastic
waste pipe etc.

There must be a gap between the the gas pipe and the sleeve
to allow any gas to escape, thus ruling out any packing of denso or
any suchlike material.

Cheers

Tim

Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:


If the house was rented than annual inspections are mandatory. It would
almost certainly have been picked up.

I'm not so sure Ed.

When I was trying to sell my late parent's house (ha!), the first thing I
did was book a CORGI chap in for a Landlord's Gas Safety check plus boiler
service, partly so I'd feel happy leaving it on unattended as frost
protection and partly to show the buyers.

For that I did get:

Boiler cleaned;
Flue smoke tested;

I didn't get:

[1]Any sort of leak test on the pipework, no manometers, just enough fairy
foam to test the joints he re-assembled;

No check on the cooker connection;

Boiler condemned due to lazy valve (you may remember, it came up here ages
ago).

[1] is rather relevant because upstairs the gas pipe is in 22mm copper
across notched joists just under the flooring with no iron plates, so pipe
damage quite likely.

It was definately a lot less thorough in scope than an electrical PIR, and I
can do the latter well enough for my own purposes.

Cheers

Tim

dennis@home wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
...
Take a look at.

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

This was perhaps the most dangerous piece of gas fitting I have directly
seen to date. What was really concerning was that the bayonet had become
unlatched and was just the grip of a sticky O-ring away from a very large
escape of gas.

Doesn't removing the bayonet turn off the gas?
It does on mine.

It does... which as originally fitted would stop the gas coming out of
the cooker but not the pipe, not the best arrangement!



--
Cheers,

John.

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

Heliotrope Smith coughed up some electrons that declared:

b) Copper and iron is a bad combination as there is a risk of dissimilar
metal corrosion with the copper being sacrificial.

As far as I know copper and iron is not a bad combination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvani...osion#Examples

It is a stupidly unlikely example, would need physical contact between the
iron and copper, lots of sea spray and the iron gets it in the neck rather
than the copper.

It was just an example that if one were taking a "zero" risk approach, then
one can some times find a (silly albeit) counterexample. By I agree, it
wouldn't be a problem unless you live under the sea(!)


Yes. the regulations do not rule out Polyethelene, PVC plastic
waste pipe etc.

OK, that's good.

There must be a gap between the the gas pipe and the sleeve
to allow any gas to escape, thus ruling out any packing of denso or
any suchlike material.

True.

Cheers

Tim

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:


The bayonet should be fitted so nothing can drop in.

Mine's at this angle and I did think it was a bit crap but I wouldn;t know
if it were against regs. I don't know who did ours - I'd assumed CORGI, but
could have been a kitchen fitter.

Cheers

Tim

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:

"Ed Sirett" wrote:

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

Doesn't removing the bayonet turn off the gas?

It does, but only if the bayonet "socket" is on the supply side and the
bayonet "plug" is the appliance side.


So a gas bayonet arangement only seals of at the 'fitting' side, not the
'hose' side when the connection is broken?

( I've never seen one. )

Yuk.
Double-Yuk.

What a cheap-skate arrangement. Works fine so long as no-one screws up.

All the hydraulic and compressed air pipework I deal with at work seals at
both ends of the coupling when disconnected.
Why the heck is it not fail-safe in this error condition?

--
Ron

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:40:14 -0000, Ron Lowe wrote:

So a gas bayonet arangement only seals of at the 'fitting' side, not the
'hose' side when the connection is broken?

Yep.

Why the heck is it not fail-safe in this error condition?

Because the law (trys to) say that only properly trained and registered
professionals are allowed to install this kit and properly trained
professionals never, ever, make mistakes do they?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Ron Lowe wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:

"Ed Sirett" wrote:

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

Doesn't removing the bayonet turn off the gas?

It does, but only if the bayonet "socket" is on the supply side and
the bayonet "plug" is the appliance side.


So a gas bayonet arangement only seals of at the 'fitting' side, not
the 'hose' side when the connection is broken?

( I've never seen one. )

Yuk.
Double-Yuk.

What a cheap-skate arrangement. Works fine so long as no-one screws
up.
All the hydraulic and compressed air pipework I deal with at work
seals at both ends of the coupling when disconnected.
Why the heck is it not fail-safe in this error condition?

Thats a very good point Ron. Hydraulic connecters are all like that as you
say. I've even seen them on carpet cleaning machines & pressure wash
systems. Why not gas?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. ..
Ron Lowe wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
dennis@home wrote:

"Ed Sirett" wrote:

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/HNTphotos/100_0272.JPG

Doesn't removing the bayonet turn off the gas?

It does, but only if the bayonet "socket" is on the supply side and
the bayonet "plug" is the appliance side.


So a gas bayonet arangement only seals of at the 'fitting' side, not
the 'hose' side when the connection is broken?

( I've never seen one. )

Yuk.
Double-Yuk.

What a cheap-skate arrangement. Works fine so long as no-one screws
up.
All the hydraulic and compressed air pipework I deal with at work
seals at both ends of the coupling when disconnected.
Why the heck is it not fail-safe in this error condition?

Thats a very good point Ron. Hydraulic connecters are all like that as
you
say. I've even seen them on carpet cleaning machines & pressure wash
systems. Why not gas?

Dave - The Medway Handyman


I think it's because supply gas pressure is not enough for such devices. It
only pushes through the pipes at milli-bars not bar pressures. There was
once a bayonet set that had sprung seals in both the hose (male) and socket
(female) and when pushed together the springs must have cancelled each other
out in the middle to let the gas flow. But I can see down side with that
arrangement and maybe it's why I haven't seen a lot of them.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:47:07 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Thats a very good point Ron. Hydraulic connecters are all like that as
you. I've even seen them on carpet cleaning machines & pressure wash
systems. Why not gas?

'Cause there isn't a need? You don't want air or dirt in a hydraulic
system or hydraulic fluid sloshing out all over the place or
water/cleaning chemicals from a carpet cleaner. A couple of foot of pipe
containing low pressure gas isn't a hazard and won't make a mess.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:57:03 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Because the law (trys to) say that only properly trained and registered
professionals are allowed to install this kit and properly trained
professionals never, ever, make mistakes do they?

Well not that basic as installing something back to front like that.



--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

Never believe anyone who claims to be a liar

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:40:14 +0000, Ron Lowe wrote:

All the hydraulic and compressed air pipework I deal with at work seals
at both ends of the coupling when disconnected. Why the heck is it not
fail-safe in this error condition?

Hydraulic obviously they don't want oil escaping from either side of the
coupling when it's disconnected.

The compressed air fittings I've seen are like gas cooker points in
that they isolate the /supply/ when disconnected, but there's no point in
isolating the load end: just more gubbins to make and install for
absolutely no purpose (unless one is trying to design fittings to allow
any half-arsed cowboy to fit them any way they like). You might equally
ask why domestic 13A plug & socket connectors aren't made so that they
shield the connectors at both ends, so if some dickhead decides to wire the
supply up to a 13A *plug* it doesn't kill anyone.

--
John Stumbles

Teenagers: tired of being harassed by your stupid parents?
Act now! Move out, get a job and pay your own bills,
while you still know everything!

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:35:31 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Think 'the law' has proved it needs questioning on things technical.
Many many times. Too many axes being ground when forming such
legislation and politicians and civil servants too thick to know when
the wool is being pulled over their eyes.

In the case of the gas regs the law (as enacted by our finest at
Westminster) has fairly sensibly delegated the more technical details to
secondary legislation (the GSIUR) written by those with a little more
clue, and the finer detail (actual industry practices, and assessment for
registration) to those who may actually have knowledge and experience
in the matters. By no means perfect but imagine what might happen if the
politicos tried to legislate directly what sort of flux we should be using!

--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk

I am neither for nor against apathy

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Thats a very good point Ron. Hydraulic connecters are all like that as
you say. I've even seen them on carpet cleaning machines & pressure
wash systems. Why not gas?

Probably because on a hydraulic connector you don't want the fluid
spilling when disconnected. With gas or air it doesn't matter.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:39:09 +0000, YAPH wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:57:03 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Because the law (trys to) say that only properly trained and registered
professionals are allowed to install this kit and properly trained
professionals never, ever, make mistakes do they?

Well not that basic as installing something back to front like that.

=========================================
They do sometimes, apparently. Here's a page from the installation and
servicing instructions (Worcester WR325 gas multipoint) which could be a
bit misleading:

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...cester-001.jpg

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ester003.jpg22

http://tinyurl.com/59zfzm

http://tinyurl.com/6mwaop

Cic.

--
==========================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
==========================================

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:36:57 +0000, Cicero wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:39:09 +0000, YAPH wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:57:03 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Because the law (trys to) say that only properly trained and registered
professionals are allowed to install this kit and properly trained
professionals never, ever, make mistakes do they?

Well not that basic as installing something back to front like that.

=========================================
They do sometimes, apparently. Here's a page from the installation and
servicing instructions (Worcester WR325 gas multipoint) which could be a
bit misleading:

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...cester-001.jpg

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ester003.jpg22

http://tinyurl.com/59zfzm

A minor hiccup - detail picture, I hope:

http://tinyurl.com/6gd2qo

Cic.

--
==========================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
==========================================

Cicero wrote:

They do sometimes, apparently. Here's a page from the installation and
servicing instructions (Worcester WR325 gas multipoint) which could be a
bit misleading:

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...cester-001.jpg

http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ester003.jpg22

This one is asking for a password...




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:57:03 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:40:14 -0000, Ron Lowe wrote:

So a gas bayonet arangement only seals of at the 'fitting' side, not
the 'hose' side when the connection is broken?

Yep.

Why the heck is it not fail-safe in this error condition?

Because the law (trys to) say that only properly trained and registered
professionals are allowed to install this kit and properly trained
professionals never, ever, make mistakes do they?

We all make small mistakes from time to time. Hopefully we spot the bigger
ones.
However this type of mistake arises from a total ignorance about the
purpose and mechanism of the fittings involved.

What I'm saying is that say in driving we all make mistakes, but you'd
only sit in the driving seat backwards if you did not know how to drive at
all.



--
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

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:44:49 +0000, John Stumbles wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:40:14 +0000, Ron Lowe wrote:

All the hydraulic and compressed air pipework I deal with at work seals
at both ends of the coupling when disconnected. Why the heck is it not
fail-safe in this error condition?

Hydraulic obviously they don't want oil escaping from either side of the
coupling when it's disconnected.

The compressed air fittings I've seen are like gas cooker points in that
they isolate the /supply/ when disconnected, but there's no point in
isolating the load end: just more gubbins to make and install for
absolutely no purpose (unless one is trying to design fittings to allow
any half-arsed cowboy to fit them any way they like). You might equally
ask why domestic 13A plug & socket connectors aren't made so that they
shield the connectors at both ends, so if some dickhead decides to wire
the supply up to a 13A *plug* it doesn't kill anyone.

Like they do for high power loudspeaker stacks with "Speakon" connectors.



--
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