"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:
The message
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

The nation
apparently is up to it's collective ears in debt with the majority of
the population having little on no net worth.

Waffle. Some of us arent in debt.

Yes, Roger does babble drivel. 80% of all debt is mortgages. Just to
put a roof over our heads.

I don't know whether the 80% quoted is correct or not but coming from
Dribble it is highly likely that he has just plucked it out of thin air
in his usual fashion.

Dri

This man is a clear plantpot.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Compensation increases room comfort and economy.

Please eff off as you are a total plantpot.

On Jun 11, 11:42*am, Roger wrote:
The message

from NT contains these words:

go watch a balanced flue boiler burn on a windy day.

I have but conditions are rather different when the boiler is firing.
When the boiler isn't firing there is no gas flow out of the
combustion
chamber, only an essentially static air mass with marginal pressure
changes as the outlet is buffeted by the wind.
think turbulence, the wind blowing across the open-ish ends creates it
Yes but it is *not* turbulent flow and does nothing to promote air flow
out of the combustion chamber.
you dont say what you mean by 'it' there.

Funnily enough it is the same 'it' that immediately precedes my 'Yes' above.

I think anyone would know
that air blown across the ends of a wide tube causes turbulence in the
tube, and the resulting churning causes slow exchange of internal with
external air. If you dont... I dunno.

In the mouth of the tube, not along it for any significant distance if
the far end is sealed. All you get further down the tube are slight
fluctuations in pressure which are not driving anything anywhere.

You could of course rely on the random movement of the air molecules to
eventually clear all the original contents of the combustion chamber but
I think you would find that the time scale for that is weeks, if not
months or years. Would fit your claim to "low exchange of internal with
external air" though.

Air exchange by random molecular motion _in gases_ is fairly fast. In
liquid it would take days.


NT

On Jun 11, 12:22*pm, Roger wrote:
The message

from NT contains these words:



big snip, as much of your reply was just repetition of the same claims

And I could same the same about you with far more justification. I at
least have made some attempt to trim earlier posts. The problem lies in
leaving enough of your nonsense in the text to give context.

More obfuscation. As Dave pointed out if you have pump overrun
then the
water is still flowing

yes, if. Most old systems dont though.

Most? You have done a survey then?
No, have you?

Your point. Your need to justify your claim.
you seem to remain confused as to the claims made. I didnt say most, I
said some.

Pure Dribble. Can't you even read what you yourself wrote just above.
The claim being debated here is that *some* cast iron exchnager boiler
owners would do better to renew their boiler.

What a non sequitur.

A restatement of the topic of debate is not meant to be a logical
sequitor, it is meant to bring you back to the issue in hand.

The 'most' you said you didn't say is still there
in the text above, plain as a pikestaff.

2 entirely different claims, systems having overrun pump timers vs
payback of boiler replacement. Just because one used the word most
doesnt mean the other did too!


NT

On Jun 11, 12:22*pm, Roger wrote:
The message
from NT contains these words:

rather beside the point. If you think that your use being above
average implies that everyone else with above average use will have
the same costs & payback as you would, then you'd make a great
politician - but a clueless bean counter.

If you twist any further you will be in danger of disappearing up your
own arse.

pointless abuse in lieu of any factual or logical content


NT

On Jun 11, 12:22*pm, Roger wrote:
The message

from NT contains these words:

Little bit of selective snipping there. Another Dribble trick.
Snipping the half mile of repetition is standard usenet practice. ITs
called netiquette. Is this all you've got left?

Look in a mirror you ignorant oaf.

personal abuse is lieu of any factual or logical content.

On Jun 11, 12:23*pm, Roger wrote:
The message
from NT contains these words:

Funny. You had no such inhibitions when you said "Exchanger heat
is not
lost to indoors." That is as close as you have come to giving a figure
for any heat transfer. You can't quantify it but you just know it is
large and all of it goes out the flue.
I didnt say it was large, and most of it does go outside, not all.
Keep on with the straw man game.

Oh for heaven's sake. Look what you said above. "Exchanger heat is not
lost to indoors".
indeed... we are talking here about what happens when the boiler isnt
firing

So you are back to square one - flatly denying that exchanger heat is
transfered indoors when the boiler isn't firing.

I've not changed on that, just clarify what we're talking about, since
it appears its needed.


And as for it not being large the whole thrust of your
argument is that it is the principal difference between cast iron heat
exchangers and those of other metals.
not even a bit. Most of the efficiency difference is not due to latent
heat thats lost to outdoors after firing ceases. All these posts and
you still havent grasped whats being claimed.

Talk about shifting the goalpost. You have just moved onto a new playing
field.

still not got it I see

Seems to me that you are in the same camp as Dribble in not knowing what
latent heat is. Non condensing boilers have no opportunity to recover
the latent heat in the flue gases and even condensing boilers will have
some small difficulty if they are not firing.

You've mis-grasped again. Since we're talking about when the boiler
isn't firing I thought it was pretty evident that we were not talking
about the latent heat of vapourisation. The latent heat under
discussion at this point is the heat stored in the metal heat
exchanger when firing stops. No wonder your responses have been
confused.


And I was arguing against the notion that if a boiler has a cast iron
heat exchanger it should be junked regardless of age.

For clarity, I was never discussing that question. I think we've
agreed all along that indiscriminate replacement ins't a constructive
policy.


NT

On Jun 11, 12:23*pm, Roger wrote:
The message
from NT contains these words:

I write *"some people ... will need to take out [a loan] in order to
fund the installation" and you read it as everyone has no choice but to
take out a loan.
no, I didnt. But your calculations only addressed that.

Liar.

I think the time has come to say goodbye. It is no use arguing with
those whose mind's are not open to reason and who don't even see the
opposing viewpoint.
yet you continue

Because you have turned from an ignorant argumentative sod to an out and
out liar.

You stop telling lies about what I have posted and I will stop responding..

What a moron.

On Jun 11, 12:27*pm, Roger wrote:
The message

from NT contains these words:

Just for the record my calculation was based on using savings to fund
the installation.
Savings at 10%pa? Do tell us where. Your figure was borrowing cost,
and you couldnt have said so more plainly.

Look at the calculation again you stupid fool. I used 3%. The reference
to 10% was to follow up the second part of my original statement - that
replacing a boiler in good working order shouldn't be contemplated if
the cost had to be borrowed.

So you now confirm that you did put a cost of capital figure into the
calculation, thus making it unusable for the many not in the same
financial situation as yourself.


NT

On Jun 5, 7:53*pm, Roger wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

Meanwhile something for the Dribbles of this world to get their
teeth into:

"Condensing boiler technology is evolving rapidly. A fully condensing
boiler with a cast-iron heat exchanger has been introduced in the United
States. It deals with the corrosive nature of the condensate produced in
it by increasing the wall thickness of the heat exchanger sufficient to
deliver an expected residential life of four to six decades and by
discouraging the conditions that accelerate corrosion."

If Dribble and his pal are to be believed that would be a condensing
boiler with an efficiency in the region of 65% at best. *:-)
No-one has made such a claim. We were discussing old iron exchanger
boilers decades old. You and facts eh.

Even more like Dribble than before. Moving the goalposts and falsifying
what has gone befo-

"IOW its datedness is not a cause for any concern... but if cast iron
then replace."

Looks like you misunderstood. Perhaps it would have been marginally
clearer to have said 'An old boiler is not a cause for any concern,
but if its also cast iron then replace.' I did not anticipate your
misunderstanding.

On Jun 7, 8:57*am, Roger wrote:

That's not bull****, just scorn, pure and simple.

It works better if you grasp whats being said before scorning it

The message

from NT contains these words:

You stop telling lies about what I have posted and I will stop
responding..

What a moron.

"pointless abuse in lieu of any factual or logical content"

What a hypocrite.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from NT contains these words:

Seems to me that you are in the same camp as Dribble in not knowing what
latent heat is. Non condensing boilers have no opportunity to recover
the latent heat in the flue gases and even condensing boilers will have
some small difficulty if they are not firing.

You've mis-grasped again. Since we're talking about when the boiler
isn't firing I thought it was pretty evident that we were not talking
about the latent heat of vapourisation. The latent heat under
discussion at this point is the heat stored in the metal heat
exchanger when firing stops. No wonder your responses have been
confused.

As I said you don't seem to know what latent heat is. What you are
referring to could be called residual heat but no way would anyone with
any real understanding of the situation would call it latent heat. It is
not even a proper use of the word 'latent' even if the associated 'heat'
is ignored.

And just to throw another spanner in your unworkable hypothesis when the
boiler isn't firing the the heat exchanger becomes a radiator and one of
the characteristics of a radiator is that it radiates. It probably
radiates marginally more heat than it loses by conduction. Signification
radiation won't escape out the flue.

--
Roger Chapman

The message

from NT contains these words:

Just for the record my calculation was based on using savings to fund
the installation.
Savings at 10%pa? Do tell us where. Your figure was borrowing cost,
and you couldnt have said so more plainly.

Look at the calculation again you stupid fool. I used 3%. The reference
to 10% was to follow up the second part of my original statement - that
replacing a boiler in good working order shouldn't be contemplated if
the cost had to be borrowed.

So you now confirm that you did put a cost of capital figure into the
calculation, thus making it unusable for the many not in the same
financial situation as yourself.

Still determined to prove what a an ignoramus you are.

In deciding whether or not it is financially beneficial to replace a
boiler or not the cost of capital just has to be part of the equation.

There are only 3 sources of capital. Out of your own resources, borrow
or steal. The first 2 have a financial cost that has to be taken into
account. The 3rd is likely to cost you your liberty and with it the
ability to enjoy your new boiler.

If you you use your own capital the calculation must take into account
what benefit you would otherwise get if you didn't blow it on a new
boiler.

And as for making the calculation unusable you really are trespassing
over the borders of insanity. For the individual every very single
factor in the calculation needs to be based on their circumstances but
perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the strange workings of your mind.
Any rational person setting out to consider replacing their boiler would
start with their existing fuel cost. Your calculation started with the
expected fuel cost of the replacement boiler and worked back to the
supposed actual cost of the existing installation. Cart before the
horse.

--
Roger Chapman

On Jun 23, 7:37*am, Roger wrote:
The message
from NT contains these words:

Seems to me that you are in the same camp as Dribble in not knowing what
latent heat is. Non condensing boilers have no opportunity to recover
the latent heat in the flue gases and even condensing boilers will have
some small difficulty if they are not firing.
You've mis-grasped again. Since we're talking about when the boiler
isn't firing I thought it was pretty evident that we were not talking
about the latent heat of vapourisation. The latent heat under
discussion at this point is the heat stored in the metal heat
exchanger when firing stops. No wonder your responses have been
confused.

As I said you don't seem to know what latent heat is.

I dont think theres any basis for that claim at all. I've said further
back in the thread that the latent heat of vapourisation _is_ the plus
point of condensing boilers.

What you are
referring to could be called residual heat but no way would anyone with
any real understanding of the situation would call it latent heat. It is
not even a proper use of the word 'latent' even if the associated 'heat'
is ignored.

according to dictionaries it is an appropriate use of the word.
Perhaps you know better than them?


And just to throw another spanner in your unworkable hypothesis when the
boiler isn't firing the the heat exchanger becomes a radiator and one of
the characteristics of a radiator is that it radiates. It probably
radiates marginally more heat than it loses by conduction. Signification
radiation won't escape out the flue.

Obviously there will be some radiation, conduction and convection. I
dont think thats news.


NT

On Jun 23, 7:38*am, Roger wrote:
The message

from NT contains these words:


Look at the calculation again you stupid fool. I used 3%. The reference
to 10% was to follow up the second part of my original statement - that
replacing a boiler in good working order shouldn't be contemplated if
the cost had to be borrowed.
So you now confirm that you did put a cost of capital figure into the
calculation, thus making it unusable for the many not in the same
financial situation as yourself.

Still determined to prove what a an ignoramus you are.

I'll snip the sillies

In deciding whether or not it is financially beneficial to replace a
boiler or not the cost of capital just has to be part of the equation.

It has to be part of the picture, clearly, but not literally the
equation. You incorporated it into your equation, I kept it separate
so the ROI could be compared to whatever rate a person would be
paying, since that rate will vary massively from one person to
another. To continue criticising a perfectly valid method shows how
little you've comprehended.


There are only 3 sources of capital. Out of your own resources, borrow
or steal. The first 2 have a financial cost that has to be taken into
account. The 3rd is likely to cost you your liberty and with it the
ability to enjoy your new boiler.

ha. Obviously there are other sources too, such as parents for a first
time buyer, or a grant. And of course the cost of capaital can vary
from savings accounts at 0.1-4% to debt at anything upto 30%+.


If you you use your own capital the calculation must take into account
what benefit you would otherwise get if you didn't blow it on a new
boiler.

of course

And as for making the calculation unusable you really are trespassing

As I've said before, incorporating one particular rate made your
calculation inapplicable to a lot of people. Its easier to compare it
separately.

For the individual every very single
factor in the calculation needs to be based on their circumstances

I'm glad you've now realised that


Any rational person setting out to consider replacing their boiler would
start with their existing fuel cost. Your calculation started with the
expected fuel cost of the replacement boiler and worked back to the
supposed actual cost of the existing installation.

It doesnt make the remotest difference which order the costs of each
option are calculated in. Clearly.


NT

The message

from NT contains these words:

As I said you don't seem to know what latent heat is.

I dont think theres any basis for that claim at all. I've said further
back in the thread that the latent heat of vapourisation _is_ the plus
point of condensing boilers.

But you had it in the heat exchanger when the boiler was not firing.

What you are
referring to could be called residual heat but no way would anyone with
any real understanding of the situation would call it latent heat. It is
not even a proper use of the word 'latent' even if the associated 'heat'
is ignored.

according to dictionaries it is an appropriate use of the word.
Perhaps you know better than them?

I know how to consult a dictionary. You have just proved you don't.

From the Concise Oxford:

"latent /.../ adj.
1 concealed, dormant.
2 existing but not developed or manifest."

There is nothing remotely concealed about the heat in the heat
exchanger. Perhaps you had in mind Collins Dictionary's 4th meaning:

"(Psychoanal.) relating to that part of a dream expressive of repressed
desires."

But I wouldn't care to speculate what particular repressed desire is
hidden in your heat exchanger.

In contrast latent heat (Oxford again):

"latent heat n. Physics
the heat required to convert a solid into a liquid or vapour, or a
liquid into a vapour, without change of temperature."


And just to throw another spanner in your unworkable hypothesis when the
boiler isn't firing the the heat exchanger becomes a radiator and one of
the characteristics of a radiator is that it radiates. It probably
radiates marginally more heat than it loses by conduction. Signification
radiation won't escape out the flue.

Obviously there will be some radiation, conduction and convection. I
dont think thats news.

And the radiated heat escapes out of the flue precisely how?

--
Roger Chapman

The message

from NT contains these words:

In deciding whether or not it is financially beneficial to replace a
boiler or not the cost of capital just has to be part of the equation.

It has to be part of the picture, clearly, but not literally the
equation. You incorporated it into your equation, I kept it separate
so the ROI could be compared to whatever rate a person would be
paying, since that rate will vary massively from one person to
another. To continue criticising a perfectly valid method shows how
little you've comprehended.

To persist in claiming a flawed methodology is perfectly valid is the
mark of a true ignoramus. Your snake oil salesman's technique is fatally
flawed. Remember what you claimed was the ROI?

"thus there is a £327 pa fuel saving from replacement. If a new boiler
costs £1500, that's a 21.8% pa return."

It is nothing of the sort. You ignored the £1500 you yourself put
forward as the cost of installation which halves your supposed rate of
return and you also ignored the fact that the boiler is a wasting asset.
At the end of the day your initial investment is worth the best part of
bugger all. So if the boiler life is as short as 10 years the ROI is
just £27/£3000 (0.9%) and in the very unlikely event that it did last 20
years the ROI only rises to 5.9%, a far cry from 21.8%. And that is
using your figures from the margins of cloud-cuckoo land.

There are only 3 sources of capital. Out of your own resources, borrow
or steal. The first 2 have a financial cost that has to be taken into
account. The 3rd is likely to cost you your liberty and with it the
ability to enjoy your new boiler.

ha. Obviously there are other sources too, such as parents for a first
time buyer, or a grant. And of course the cost of capital can vary
from savings accounts at 0.1-4% to debt at anything upto 30%+.

Clutching at straws. It still costs someone. That you would disregard
the cost to parents or the taxpayer is typical of your simplistic
approach to any problem.


If you you use your own capital the calculation must take into account
what benefit you would otherwise get if you didn't blow it on a new
boiler.

of course

And as for making the calculation unusable you really are trespassing

As I've said before, incorporating one particular rate made your
calculation inapplicable to a lot of people. Its easier to compare it
separately.

You can say what you like but it is still a collection of fatuous nonsense.

For the individual every very single
factor in the calculation needs to be based on their circumstances

I'm glad you've now realised that

I have known that from the start. Unfortunately you haven't. Putting
forward a calculation (even if it had been correct) based on extremes
isn't going to help the vast majority one iota.

Any rational person setting out to consider replacing their boiler would
start with their existing fuel cost. Your calculation started with the
expected fuel cost of the replacement boiler and worked back to the
supposed actual cost of the existing installation.

It doesnt make the remotest difference which order the costs of each
option are calculated in. Clearly.

Clearly what? Starting the calculation from the situation in
cloud-cuckoo land and attempting to arrive at the status quo indicates
an agenda, if nothing else.

--
Roger Chapman