Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which discusses
the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan, C-Plan, S-Plan, W-Plan
etc., there is a link to a description on the Honeywell site.

.. . . except that Honeywell have taken down that very interesting reference
document, and you you now get re-directed their home page - which isn't very
useful!

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions, which could
be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored..
Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO
NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:
Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which discusses
the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan, C-Plan, S-Plan, W-Plan
etc., there is a link to a description on the Honeywell site.

. . . except that Honeywell have taken down that very interesting reference
document, and you you now get re-directed their home page - which isn't very
useful!

I came across this last week, and was going to post a similar request
until I had a closer look at the redirect page that Honeywell are
serving to bounce the dead references back to the home page.

It sez ...
"Please wait! You are currently being diverted to our new website at
www.honeywelluk.com Please update your bookmarks"

However, if you place your cursor over the link (as if you would if the
redirect failed), you will notice it really links to a spammers revenue
raising parking page.

I've spoken to someone at honeywell about this - seems they have yet to
fix it (or my report of the issue went over their heads).

:-(

--
Adrian C

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which discusses
the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan, C-Plan, S-Plan,
W-Plan etc., there is a link to a description on the Honeywell site.

. . . except that Honeywell have taken down that very interesting
reference document, and you you now get re-directed their home page -
which isn't very useful!

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions, which
could be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored..
Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO
NEWSGROUP!

Salus do good clear diagrams

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/S%...%7D CP222.pdf

and

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/Y%...% 20CP322.pdf

and together

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/TC...NG%20front.pdf


Adam

PS Roger you remember the Y Plan timer overrun problem you helped me with a
few weks ago? I had to set the overrun timer to 7 minutes in the end. WB
technical informed me that the 24Ri overrun is just a 3 minute timer
overrun. I may have more questions about that install if you are still
prepared to help.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which
discusses the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan,
C-Plan, S-Plan, W-Plan etc., there is a link to a description on the
Honeywell site. . . . except that Honeywell have taken down that very
interesting
reference document, and you you now get re-directed their home page -
which isn't very useful!

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions,
which could be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?

Salus do good clear diagrams

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/S%...%7D CP222.pdf

and

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/Y%...% 20CP322.pdf

and together

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/TC...NG%20front.pdf


Yes, they'd probably do for S-Plan and Y-Plan even though they're not quite
the same as the original Honeywell ones. Interestingly the combined one
which you cite uses 16-way wiring centres, whereas the individual ones use
10-way boxes, more like Honeywell.

However, neither covers C-Plan or W-Plan.


PS Roger you remember the Y Plan timer overrun problem you helped me
with a few weks ago? I had to set the overrun timer to 7 minutes in
the end. WB technical informed me that the 24Ri overrun is just a 3
minute timer overrun. I may have more questions about that install if
you are still prepared to help.

I'll do my best! What led you to the 7 minute setting - what actually
happened if you set it to less?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which
discusses the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan,
C-Plan, S-Plan, W-Plan etc., there is a link to a description on the
Honeywell site. . . . except that Honeywell have taken down that very
interesting
reference document, and you you now get re-directed their home page -
which isn't very useful!

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions,
which could be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?

Salus do good clear diagrams

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/S%...%7D CP222.pdf

and

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/Y%...% 20CP322.pdf

and together

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/TC...NG%20front.pdf


Yes, they'd probably do for S-Plan and Y-Plan even though they're not
quite the same as the original Honeywell ones. Interestingly the combined
one which you cite uses 16-way wiring centres, whereas the individual ones
use 10-way boxes, more like Honeywell.

However, neither covers C-Plan or W-Plan.


PS Roger you remember the Y Plan timer overrun problem you helped me
with a few weks ago? I had to set the overrun timer to 7 minutes in
the end. WB technical informed me that the 24Ri overrun is just a 3
minute timer overrun. I may have more questions about that install if
you are still prepared to help.

I'll do my best! What led you to the 7 minute setting - what actually
happened if you set it to less?
--
Cheers,
Roger


The original Honeywell pictures are available

S plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/s1.jpg

Y plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/y1.jpg

C Plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/c1.jpg

W Plan

I cannot find it.



I have driven over 800 miles today and so I am a bit knackered.

But my quick reply is , when the pump stopped it seems that the water in the
system was so hot it tried to go up the expansion pipe to the tank in the
loft. Lots of banging noises and the vent pipe got very hot. If I kicked the
pump back on then the vent pipe went cold and the banging stopped.

I still suspect a plumbing problem somewhere. I can take pictures of the
plumbing if it helps.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:



The original Honeywell pictures are available

S plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/s1.jpg

Y plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/y1.jpg

C Plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/c1.jpg

W Plan

I cannot find it.


Yes, those are the ones - well, the wiring diagrams anyway. The original
document also had a plumbing schematic for each plan.

I'm not sure how common W-Plan systems are these days. They use a simple
diverter valve rather than a mid-position valve, and can thus do HW *or* CH
but not both at the same time - usually with HW priority, so you get no CH
until the HW demand is satisfied. AIUI, W-plan was invented *before* Y-Plan,
and the mid-position valve used by Y-Plan was subsequently invented to
overcome the problem of having to wait for the DHW to get hot before having
any space heating. However, with modern fast-recovery cylinders, that is
less of a problem - and I've heard it suggested that W-Plan systems are
coming back. They're certainly simpler from a wiring point of view, and have
less failure modes than Y-Plan.



I have driven over 800 miles today and so I am a bit knackered.

But my quick reply is , when the pump stopped it seems that the water
in the system was so hot it tried to go up the expansion pipe to the
tank in the loft. Lots of banging noises and the vent pipe got very
hot. If I kicked the pump back on then the vent pipe went cold and
the banging stopped.
I still suspect a plumbing problem somewhere. I can take pictures of
the plumbing if it helps.

Pictures would probably help - plus a diagram showing the overall pipe
layout.

On the face of it, it sounds as if there isn't a clear unrestricted path
from the boiler to the vent pipe but, if so, it's curious that this is fixed
by running the pump - unless that simply causes the residual heat to be
dissipated somewhere else, which I suppose is possible.

If my system over-runs for an insufficient period, the boiler's over-heat
stat trips - but there's no drama such as banging and gurgling etc.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:



The original Honeywell pictures are available

S plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/s1.jpg

Y plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/y1.jpg

C Plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/c1.jpg

W Plan

I cannot find it.


Yes, those are the ones - well, the wiring diagrams anyway. The original
document also had a plumbing schematic for each plan.

Good point.

I'm not sure how common W-Plan systems are these days. They use a simple
diverter valve rather than a mid-position valve, and can thus do HW *or*
CH but not both at the same time - usually with HW priority, so you get no
CH until the HW demand is satisfied. AIUI, W-plan was invented *before*
Y-Plan, and the mid-position valve used by Y-Plan was subsequently
invented to overcome the problem of having to wait for the DHW to get hot
before having any space heating. However, with modern fast-recovery
cylinders, that is less of a problem - and I've heard it suggested that
W-Plan systems are coming back. They're certainly simpler from a wiring
point of view, and have less failure modes than Y-Plan.


I am sure that I have seen variations of the W plan for gravity HW using a 2
port valve!

I doubt W plans will make a comeback. A W plan cannot meet part L of the
building regs as it does not allow total independant control of the HW and
CH circuits.


I have driven over 800 miles today and so I am a bit knackered.

But my quick reply is , when the pump stopped it seems that the water
in the system was so hot it tried to go up the expansion pipe to the
tank in the loft. Lots of banging noises and the vent pipe got very
hot. If I kicked the pump back on then the vent pipe went cold and
the banging stopped.
I still suspect a plumbing problem somewhere. I can take pictures of
the plumbing if it helps.

Pictures would probably help - plus a diagram showing the overall pipe
layout.

On the face of it, it sounds as if there isn't a clear unrestricted path
from the boiler to the vent pipe but, if so, it's curious that this is
fixed by running the pump - unless that simply causes the residual heat to
be dissipated somewhere else, which I suppose is possible.

If my system over-runs for an insufficient period, the boiler's over-heat
stat trips - but there's no drama such as banging and gurgling etc.
--


I will ping you when I get some photos. The customer has not complained for
two weeks now so it seems to be working.

Adam

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:



I am sure that I have seen variations of the W plan for gravity HW
using a 2 port valve!

I think you're confusing it with C-Plan, which does that.

I doubt W plans will make a comeback. A W plan cannot meet part L of
the building regs as it does not allow total independant control of
the HW and CH circuits.

W-Plan is fully pumped with a diverter valve, and *does* provide independent
control and a boiler interlock, so I don't see why it wouldn't meet Part L.

If you actually mean C-Plan, that also provides independent control and
boiler interlock. It's actually devilish cunning in the way that it uses the
auxiliary change-over contacts in the single 2-port valve.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:



I am sure that I have seen variations of the W plan for gravity HW
using a 2 port valve!

I think you're confusing it with C-Plan, which does that.

It was half and half. It was definately neither. I was ripping it out for a
plumber who was installing a combi.

I doubt W plans will make a comeback. A W plan cannot meet part L of
the building regs as it does not allow total independant control of
the HW and CH circuits.

W-Plan is fully pumped with a diverter valve, and *does* provide
independent control and a boiler interlock, so I don't see why it wouldn't
meet Part L.

If you actually mean C-Plan, that also provides independent control and
boiler interlock. It's actually devilish cunning in the way that it uses
the auxiliary change-over contacts in the single 2-port valve.
--
Cheers,
Roger

The reason I suggested that a W plan would not meet Part L is because you
have to heat the hot water up regardless of need on a W plan and Best
practice for boiler controls says that the HW and CH should be provided with
independant time controls.

Cheers

Adam

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:


The reason I suggested that a W plan would not meet Part L is because
you have to heat the hot water up regardless of need on a W plan and
Best practice for boiler controls says that the HW and CH should be
provided with independant time controls.

Cheers

Adam

I don't think you're right. Unless I'm mistaken, if you turn HW off at the
programmer, the HW demand will be deemed to be satisfied, and it will go
straight to CH. Even if that is not the case, you could achieve the same
thing by turning the cylinder stat right down.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:


The reason I suggested that a W plan would not meet Part L is because
you have to heat the hot water up regardless of need on a W plan and
Best practice for boiler controls says that the HW and CH should be
provided with independant time controls.

Cheers

Adam

I don't think you're right. Unless I'm mistaken, if you turn HW off at the
programmer, the HW demand will be deemed to be satisfied, and it will go
straight to CH. Even if that is not the case, you could achieve the same
thing by turning the cylinder stat right down.
--
Cheers,
Roger

The Honeywell W plan download from here

http://www.honeywelluk.com/article.aspx?ai=sysplansdl

states that "the programmer should be one which does not allow heating to be
selected without hot water". (register yourself to get the downloads,
Honeywell will not know that you are not a company) or I can email you the
download if you want.


http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/w1.jpg

is the missing picture for the W plan diagam

You are correct in that you can turn the cylinder stat down. That would be a
PITA or impossible for most people (do you know many jobs I do where the
customer does not know where the fuse box/CU is?)

About 4 years ago (Christmas time see PS) I believe that you made a post
about W plans and using the HW off from the programmer to allow CH only. I
cannot find the post on Google. I remember not trying it in the end
(although I agreed with your idea at the time) as I worked out that the
boiler would fire up constantly.


I also found this for Y plans (the wiring diagram is actually incorrect, see
if you can spot it?)

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag109.pdf

and this for S plans

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag110.pdf

Are they any better as to the types of links you want to replace missing
ones for the Wiki?

To be honest, W plans are so rare that most people do not know about them,
but it would be good to still have a Wiki article that covers them to give
help when needed.

Cheers

Adam

PS Christmas time for sure as I was wearing a Santa outfit at the house I
mentioned in my reply to you.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:


The Honeywell W plan download from here

http://www.honeywelluk.com/article.aspx?ai=sysplansdl

states that "the programmer should be one which does not allow
heating to be selected without hot water". (register yourself to get
the downloads, Honeywell will not know that you are not a company) or
I can email you the download if you want.

Yes, you're right - I stand corrected! With the system as specified, the
valve *only* gets energised, and the flow diverted to the CH, once the HW
stat is satisfied - so you *have* to have the HW on unless you turn the stat
down.

[I was sure that I previously registered, but it didn't think so, so I've
(re-)registered and can now see the documents.]


http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/w1.jpg

is the missing picture for the W plan diagam

You are correct in that you can turn the cylinder stat down. That
would be a PITA or impossible for most people (do you know many jobs
I do where the customer does not know where the fuse box/CU is?)

About 4 years ago (Christmas time see PS) I believe that you made a
post about W plans and using the HW off from the programmer to allow
CH only. I cannot find the post on Google. I remember not trying it
in the end (although I agreed with your idea at the time) as I worked
out that the boiler would fire up constantly.

Interesting that you should say that. I have no recollection of suggesting
that in the past (but that's no guarantee that I didn't!) BUT I was about to
suggest just that before reading your paragraph above - and still am!

I reckon that if you connect the programmer's HW-OFF to terminal (5) in the
junction box, that would have the desired effect. The valve would be
energised all the time but the boiler would only fire when either the CH
demand was unsatisfied, or the HW demand was *satisfied*. The latter is
unlikely, since the water is not being heated - but I suppose it *could*
cause a problem if you turned the HW off when you already had a tank of hot
water. It would work best if HW were either permanently ON or permanently
OFF at the programmer.


I also found this for Y plans (the wiring diagram is actually
incorrect, see if you can spot it?)

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag109.pdf


I presume that you're referring to the fact that HW-OFF is missing on the
timer (even though it's there on the control schematic)? Incidentally, that
particular diagram is *not* the same as the one you can download from
http://www.honeywelluk.com/article.aspx?ai=sysplansdl once you've
registered - which is the old one which we all know and love.

and this for S plans

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag110.pdf

Are they any better as to the types of links you want to replace
missing ones for the Wiki?


Probable - although the downloadable 'traditional'ones are even better for
imparting a basic understanding - but maybe that's because those are the
ones I was brought up on? If they are going to be referenced from the Wiki,
they'd have to be put somewhere where you can see them without needing to
register - which would very likely violate Honeywell's copyright and terms
of use - which I blithely ticked to accept without reading!




To be honest, W plans are so rare that most people do not know about
them, but it would be good to still have a Wiki article that covers
them to give help when needed.


Agreed.

Cheers

Adam

PS Christmas time for sure as I was wearing a Santa outfit at the
house I mentioned in my reply to you.

Funny what you remember. My wife says I always work out when things happened
by remembering what car I was driving at the time! [Ah yes, we went there in
the blue Rover 600, so it must have been about 1995 - or whatever].
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:

Probable - although the downloadable 'traditional'ones are even better for
imparting a basic understanding - but maybe that's because those are the
ones I was brought up on? If they are going to be referenced from the Wiki,
they'd have to be put somewhere where you can see them without needing to
register - which would very likely violate Honeywell's copyright and terms
of use - which I blithely ticked to accept without reading!

We could host a copy of the faq site and link them... see if anyone notices.

To be honest, W plans are so rare that most people do not know about
them, but it would be good to still have a Wiki article that covers
them to give help when needed.


Agreed.

Last house had one when I moved in... was replaced with a mid position
valve shortly after ;-)

Funny what you remember. My wife says I always work out when things happened
by remembering what car I was driving at the time! [Ah yes, we went there in
the blue Rover 600, so it must have been about 1995 - or whatever].

Most SWMBOs it seems keep a catalogue of all your DIY mistakes. Ready to
recall when the moment suites!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:


The Honeywell W plan download from here

http://www.honeywelluk.com/article.aspx?ai=sysplansdl

states that "the programmer should be one which does not allow
heating to be selected without hot water". (register yourself to get
the downloads, Honeywell will not know that you are not a company) or
I can email you the download if you want.

Yes, you're right - I stand corrected! With the system as specified, the
valve *only* gets energised, and the flow diverted to the CH, once the HW
stat is satisfied - so you *have* to have the HW on unless you turn the
stat down.

[I was sure that I previously registered, but it didn't think so, so I've
(re-)registered and can now see the documents.]


http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/w1.jpg

is the missing picture for the W plan diagam

You are correct in that you can turn the cylinder stat down. That
would be a PITA or impossible for most people (do you know many jobs
I do where the customer does not know where the fuse box/CU is?)

About 4 years ago (Christmas time see PS) I believe that you made a
post about W plans and using the HW off from the programmer to allow
CH only. I cannot find the post on Google. I remember not trying it
in the end (although I agreed with your idea at the time) as I worked
out that the boiler would fire up constantly.

Interesting that you should say that. I have no recollection of suggesting
that in the past (but that's no guarantee that I didn't!) BUT I was about
to suggest just that before reading your paragraph above - and still am!

I reckon that if you connect the programmer's HW-OFF to terminal (5) in
the junction box, that would have the desired effect. The valve would be
energised all the time but the boiler would only fire when either the CH
demand was unsatisfied, or the HW demand was *satisfied*. The latter is
unlikely, since the water is not being heated - but I suppose it *could*
cause a problem if you turned the HW off when you already had a tank of
hot water. It would work best if HW were either permanently ON or
permanently OFF at the programmer.

One small problem. Terminal 5 in wiring centre is linked to term 2 of the
cylinder stat. A HW off with the stat not calling for heat will fire the
boiler.


I also found this for Y plans (the wiring diagram is actually
incorrect, see if you can spot it?)

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag109.pdf


I presume that you're referring to the fact that HW-OFF is missing on the
timer (even though it's there on the control schematic)? Incidentally,
that particular diagram is *not* the same as the one you can download from
http://www.honeywelluk.com/article.aspx?ai=sysplansdl once you've
registered - which is the old one which we all know and love.

Correct. That was quick.


and this for S plans

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/files/pag110.pdf

Are they any better as to the types of links you want to replace
missing ones for the Wiki?


Probable - although the downloadable 'traditional'ones are even better for
imparting a basic understanding - but maybe that's because those are the
ones I was brought up on? If they are going to be referenced from the
Wiki, they'd have to be put somewhere where you can see them without
needing to register - which would very likely violate Honeywell's
copyright and terms of use - which I blithely ticked to accept without
reading!

I will keep looking for others then.

Adam

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

I reckon that if you connect the programmer's HW-OFF to terminal (5)
in the junction box, that would have the desired effect. The valve
would be energised all the time but the boiler would only fire when
either the CH demand was unsatisfied, or the HW demand was
*satisfied*. The latter is unlikely, since the water is not being
heated - but I suppose it *could* cause a problem if you turned the
HW off when you already had a tank of hot water. It would work best
if HW were either permanently ON or permanently OFF at the
programmer.

One small problem. Terminal 5 in wiring centre is linked to term 2 of
the cylinder stat. A HW off with the stat not calling for heat will
fire the boiler.


Yes, I did acknowledge that in the para above yours, but I didn't see it as
too much of problem if you used the system in a certain way. But, on
reflection, it probably *would* cause problems for the uninitiated - which
is presumably why Honeywell don't do it like that.

I think we're veering towards violent agreement! It's good to be able to
float ideas and to have them politely scrutinised. I wish that more of the
threads in this NG were like this one!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

I reckon that if you connect the programmer's HW-OFF to terminal (5)
in the junction box, that would have the desired effect. The valve
would be energised all the time but the boiler would only fire when
either the CH demand was unsatisfied, or the HW demand was
*satisfied*. The latter is unlikely, since the water is not being
heated - but I suppose it *could* cause a problem if you turned the
HW off when you already had a tank of hot water. It would work best
if HW were either permanently ON or permanently OFF at the
programmer.

One small problem. Terminal 5 in wiring centre is linked to term 2 of
the cylinder stat. A HW off with the stat not calling for heat will
fire the boiler.


Yes, I did acknowledge that in the para above yours, but I didn't see it
as too much of problem if you used the system in a certain way. But, on
reflection, it probably *would* cause problems for the uninitiated - which
is presumably why Honeywell don't do it like that.

I think we're veering towards violent agreement! It's good to be able to
float ideas and to have them politely scrutinised. I wish that more of the
threads in this NG were like this one!
--
Cheers,
Roger



Excluded from politeness are the threads that involve anything to do with
CFLs, laminate,
Combi boilers, decking, solar power, wind power, spot lights or plastic pipe
cutting techniques. Did I miss any out?


Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
Just been looking at the CH Controls and Zoning section - which
discusses the various heating 'plans'. For each plan - Y-Plan,
C-Plan, S-Plan, W-Plan etc., there is a link to a description on the
Honeywell site. . . . except that Honeywell have taken down that
very interesting
reference document, and you you now get re-directed their home page -
which isn't very useful!

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions,
which could be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?

Salus do good clear diagrams

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/S%...%7D CP222.pdf


and

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/Y%...% 20CP322.pdf


and together

http://www.salus-tech.com/manuals/TC...NG%20front.pdf


Yes, they'd probably do for S-Plan and Y-Plan even though they're not
quite the same as the original Honeywell ones. Interestingly the
combined one which you cite uses 16-way wiring centres, whereas the
individual ones use 10-way boxes, more like Honeywell.

However, neither covers C-Plan or W-Plan.


PS Roger you remember the Y Plan timer overrun problem you helped me
with a few weks ago? I had to set the overrun timer to 7 minutes in
the end. WB technical informed me that the 24Ri overrun is just a 3
minute timer overrun. I may have more questions about that install if
you are still prepared to help.

I'll do my best! What led you to the 7 minute setting - what actually
happened if you set it to less?
--
Cheers,
Roger


The original Honeywell pictures are available

S plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/s1.jpg

Y plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/y1.jpg

C Plan

http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/Schemes/c1.jpg

W Plan

I cannot find it.


OK, I've redrawn these plans in Autocad. If someone wants to put them up
on the Wiki they're welcome. Please let me know what format/size you
want them and where to send them.

Here's a sample: -

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=oaaj3p&s=3

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Dave Osborne wrote:


OK, I've redrawn these plans in Autocad. If someone wants to put them
up on the Wiki they're welcome. Please let me know what format/size
you want them and where to send them.

Here's a sample: -

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=oaaj3p&s=3

Excellent!

I'm not too sure about showing the internals of the mid-position valve
unless you're going to show *all* the gory details - Honeywell just show the
wires disappearing into the case. Having said that, they *do* show the
internal motor and auxilliary contacts on the 2-port valves used in S-Plan
systems.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Stumbles wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:28:04 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

Anyone know of an alternative source of these plan descriptions,
which could be linked to, instead of the 'dead' ones?

Thanks for the heads-up Roger. Try:

s
{http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}
{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Wiki duly updated


Thanks, but, for some reason or other, the link still fails when it gets to
the Honeywell site.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:


I'm not too sure about showing the internals of the mid-position valve
unless you're going to show *all* the gory details - Honeywell just show the
wires disappearing into the case.

Yes, I agree, which is why I've sort of left the internal schematic
vague, but give some idea as to what's going on. I have taken the info
from this document:-

http://content.honeywell.com/UK/homes/FAQ/v4073aop.pdf

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:39 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Stumbles wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Roger. Try:

s
{http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}
{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Wiki duly updated


Thanks, but, for some reason or other, the link still fails when it gets to
the Honeywell site.

How do you mean? You shouldn't need to go onto the Honeywell site, unless
you follow a link on the web.archive.org saved copy of the Honeywell page
which I link to.

--
John Stumbles

Life is nature's way of keeping meat fresh

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:39 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Stumbles wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Roger. Try:

s
{http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}
{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Wiki duly updated


Thanks, but, for some reason or other, the link still fails when it gets
to
the Honeywell site.

How do you mean? You shouldn't need to go onto the Honeywell site, unless
you follow a link on the web.archive.org saved copy of the Honeywell page
which I link to.

--
John Stumbles

The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are back. The
ones that I and Roger wanted.


{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Nice one John

Cheers

Adam

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
ARWadsworth wrote:


The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are
back. The ones that I and Roger wanted.


{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Nice one John

Cheers

Adam


Yes, they're the ones - great - thanks.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Stumbles wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:39 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Stumbles wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Roger. Try:

s
{http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}
{http://web.archive.org/web/20071121191708/http://content.honeywell.com/uk/homes/systems.htm}

Wiki duly updated


Thanks, but, for some reason or other, the link still fails when it
gets to the Honeywell site.

How do you mean? You shouldn't need to go onto the Honeywell site,
unless you follow a link on the web.archive.org saved copy of the
Honeywell page which I link to.


It works fine now. Not sure why it didn't when I tried earlier. Probably
finger trouble!

Incidentally, I'd not previously come across web.archive.org - it looks like
a useful facility!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

ARWadsworth wrote:

The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are back.
The ones that I and Roger wanted.

You don't want those.... Dave has drawn a much nicer set:

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/docs/SundialPlansRev1.pdf

(just sticking gif versions up on the wiki now, so we can have them
inline in the articles)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Rumm wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are
back. The ones that I and Roger wanted.

You don't want those.... Dave has drawn a much nicer set:

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/docs/SundialPlansRev1.pdf

(just sticking gif versions up on the wiki now, so we can have them
inline in the articles)


Yes, they're pretty good!

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about being
completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or refurbishments.
I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot of gravity HW systems
out there which would benefit from being converted to C-Plan - which
requires very little plumbing and delivers considerable efficiency
improvements relative to the status quo. The only downside compared with a
fully pumped system is that when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on
for longer than it otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather
than firing continuously.

Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet Part-L, and would thus
presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional' gravity HW/pumped
CH system?

I'm still not sure about the way in which Y-Plan's mid-position valve is
depicted. As everyone knows, it has two microswitches and other components
in addition to the motor. I still tend to the view that we should either
show *all* internal connections (as for other types of valve) or *none* (as
per Honeywell's original Y-Plan diagram).
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about being
completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or refurbishments.
I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot of gravity HW systems
out there which would benefit from being converted to C-Plan - which
requires very little plumbing and delivers considerable efficiency
improvements relative to the status quo. The only downside compared with a
fully pumped system is that when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on
for longer than it otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather
than firing continuously.

Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet Part-L, and would thus
presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional' gravity HW/pumped
CH system?

I found a website which stated this:

"Recent changes to the Building Regulations have made semi-gravity
non-compliant, so fully pumped is the only layout currently suitable for
new installations. The Building Regulations now control boiler
replacements too, and effectively require conversion of semi-gravity
systems to fully-pumped whenever a boiler is replaced."

Clearly, the author of the above doesn't cite his sources and I have to
say I didn't check them either. If you think the above statement is
********, then please let me know.


I'm still not sure about the way in which Y-Plan's mid-position valve is
depicted. As everyone knows, it has two microswitches and other components
in addition to the motor. I still tend to the view that we should either
show *all* internal connections (as for other types of valve) or *none* (as
per Honeywell's original Y-Plan diagram).

Ok, I thought about this. I am of the opinion that showing the full
internals of the mid-position valve would not be useful to the vast
majority of people and indeed, I couldn't draw it in the space available
at any reasonable scale. Also, I do not have such a valve to hand to
reverse-engineer the wiring details for. However, it is clear from
Honeywell documentation previously cited that the white and grey wires
assert the valve and the orange wire is a switched output - which is
what I have indicated on the schematic. I am inclined to leave it as it
is and I don't see a downside in doing so - it is after all standard
practice over a wide range of electrical/electronic industries to show a
simplified form of internal operation of a device.

Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Rumm wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are
back. The ones that I and Roger wanted.
You don't want those.... Dave has drawn a much nicer set:

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/docs/SundialPlansRev1.pdf

(just sticking gif versions up on the wiki now, so we can have them
inline in the articles)


Yes, they're pretty good!

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about being
completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or refurbishments.
I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot of gravity HW systems
out there which would benefit from being converted to C-Plan - which
requires very little plumbing and delivers considerable efficiency
improvements relative to the status quo. The only downside compared with a
fully pumped system is that when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on
for longer than it otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather
than firing continuously.

I did pause on reading Dave's comment on the schematic, and wonder it it
was a little "absolute". While it is true you would not start from there
today, I also take your point that it could be an improvement on a
unvalved gravity system... (IIRC, prior to modern zone valves and
cylinder stats etc, there used to be a type of wax capsule valve you
could fit to a cylinder to quench the gravity flow when it was to
temperature - can't remember the name of it alas)

Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet Part-L, and would thus
presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional' gravity HW/pumped
CH system?

Depends on your interpretation I guess. Part L requires fully pumped
IIRC, but then again most BCOs will be pragmatic and recognise a non
ideal situation that is actually an improvement on what was there.

(having said that I expect the target audience for this sort of info is
not going to be the rip and replace to building regs demographic!)

I'm still not sure about the way in which Y-Plan's mid-position valve is
depicted. As everyone knows, it has two microswitches and other components
in addition to the motor. I still tend to the view that we should either
show *all* internal connections (as for other types of valve) or *none* (as
per Honeywell's original Y-Plan diagram).

I have no objection to showing all internals - but I am not sure it adds
much given context of what the wiring diagram is attempting to show. One
could add a note to say that this is a "simplification" that is really
there to show the orange wires is switched to provide a call for heat -
even if the actual mechanism is not depicted accurately.

Thinking about it, perhaps we could show it empty, but with a note to
see another diagram for details, and then maybe Dave would be kind
enough to redraw the diagram we have he

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/plumbing/co...itionvalve.htm

(oh, just noticed Geoff's email link is broken in that...)




--
Cheers,

John.

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

Dave Osborne wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about being
completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or
refurbishments. I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot
of gravity HW systems out there which would benefit from being
converted to C-Plan - which requires very little plumbing and delivers
considerable efficiency improvements relative to the status quo. The
only downside compared with a fully pumped system is that when just HW
is being heated, the boiler is on for longer than it otherwise would
be - albeit cycling on its stat rather than firing continuously.

Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet Part-L, and
would thus presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional'
gravity HW/pumped CH system?

I found a website which stated this:

"Recent changes to the Building Regulations have made semi-gravity
non-compliant, so fully pumped is the only layout currently suitable for
new installations. The Building Regulations now control boiler
replacements too, and effectively require conversion of semi-gravity
systems to fully-pumped whenever a boiler is replaced."

Clearly, the author of the above doesn't cite his sources and I have to
say I didn't check them either. If you think the above statement is
********, then please let me know.

The statement may be ok, but it still leaves scope to improve the
controls on an existing boiler when not replacing it (or the cylinder)

I'm still not sure about the way in which Y-Plan's mid-position valve
is depicted. As everyone knows, it has two microswitches and other
components in addition to the motor. I still tend to the view that we
should either show *all* internal connections (as for other types of
valve) or *none* (as per Honeywell's original Y-Plan diagram).

Ok, I thought about this. I am of the opinion that showing the full
internals of the mid-position valve would not be useful to the vast
majority of people and indeed, I couldn't draw it in the space available
at any reasonable scale. Also, I do not have such a valve to hand to
reverse-engineer the wiring details for. However, it is clear from

See my suggestion on the other response - there is a link to the
internal circus diagram as well.

Honeywell documentation previously cited that the white and grey wires
assert the valve and the orange wire is a switched output - which is
what I have indicated on the schematic. I am inclined to leave it as it
is and I don't see a downside in doing so - it is after all standard
practice over a wide range of electrical/electronic industries to show a
simplified form of internal operation of a device.

Yup, I think with a note that an "expansion" of the detail is available
elsewhere it would be ok.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Dave Osborne wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about
being completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or
refurbishments. I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot
of gravity HW systems out there which would benefit from being
converted to C-Plan - which requires very little plumbing and
delivers considerable efficiency improvements relative to the status
quo. The only downside compared with a fully pumped system is that
when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on for longer than it
otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather than firing
continuously. Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet
Part-L, and
would thus presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional'
gravity HW/pumped CH system?

I found a website which stated this:

"Recent changes to the Building Regulations have made semi-gravity
non-compliant, so fully pumped is the only layout currently suitable
for new installations. The Building Regulations now control boiler
replacements too, and effectively require conversion of semi-gravity
systems to fully-pumped whenever a boiler is replaced."

Clearly, the author of the above doesn't cite his sources and I have
to say I didn't check them either. If you think the above statement is
********, then please let me know.


The statement, as it stands, may well be correct - but it doesn't cover the
situation where a zone valve is inserted into an existing gravity system to
convert it to a C-Plan *without* changing the boiler. I have occasionally -
via this NG - suggested that people should consider this option when they
complain either that the HW gets *too* hot or that they have to turn the
boiler stat down to prevent this - with the result that the rads are not hot
enough. A C-Plan system solves this problem by providing independent control
of HW and CH *and* provides a boiler interlock - ensuring that the boiler
switches off when both demands are satisfied.

Am I suggesting that they do something which is *illegal*?


I'm still not sure about the way in which Y-Plan's mid-position
valve is depicted. As everyone knows, it has two microswitches and
other components in addition to the motor. I still tend to the view
that we should either show *all* internal connections (as for other
types of valve) or *none* (as per Honeywell's original Y-Plan
diagram).

Ok, I thought about this. I am of the opinion that showing the full
internals of the mid-position valve would not be useful to the vast
majority of people and indeed, I couldn't draw it in the space
available at any reasonable scale. Also, I do not have such a valve
to hand to reverse-engineer the wiring details for. However, it is
clear from Honeywell documentation previously cited that the white
and grey wires assert the valve and the orange wire is a switched
output - which is what I have indicated on the schematic. I am
inclined to leave it as it is and I don't see a downside in doing so
- it is after all standard practice over a wide range of
electrical/electronic industries to show a simplified form of
internal operation of a device.

Fair enough - it's not a big deal.

I think you've done a great job with the diagrams!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Dave Osborne wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about
being completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or
refurbishments. I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot
of gravity HW systems out there which would benefit from being
converted to C-Plan - which requires very little plumbing and
delivers considerable efficiency improvements relative to the status
quo. The only downside compared with a fully pumped system is that
when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on for longer than it
otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather than firing
continuously. Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet
Part-L, and
would thus presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional'
gravity HW/pumped CH system?
I found a website which stated this:

"Recent changes to the Building Regulations have made semi-gravity
non-compliant, so fully pumped is the only layout currently suitable
for new installations. The Building Regulations now control boiler
replacements too, and effectively require conversion of semi-gravity
systems to fully-pumped whenever a boiler is replaced."

Clearly, the author of the above doesn't cite his sources and I have
to say I didn't check them either. If you think the above statement is
********, then please let me know.


The statement, as it stands, may well be correct - but it doesn't cover the
situation where a zone valve is inserted into an existing gravity system to
convert it to a C-Plan *without* changing the boiler. I have occasionally -
via this NG - suggested that people should consider this option when they
complain either that the HW gets *too* hot or that they have to turn the
boiler stat down to prevent this - with the result that the rads are not hot
enough. A C-Plan system solves this problem by providing independent control
of HW and CH *and* provides a boiler interlock - ensuring that the boiler
switches off when both demands are satisfied.

Am I suggesting that they do something which is *illegal*?

I don't think so. Fiddling with plumbing or boiler controls on their own
are probably not in the scope of a "controlled activity". Changing the
boiler or cylinder is though, and then that drags controls into scope.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
ARWadsworth wrote:

The web archive link works fine here. All those nice drawings are back.
The ones that I and Roger wanted.

You don't want those.... Dave has drawn a much nicer set:

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/docs/SundialPlansRev1.pdf

(just sticking gif versions up on the wiki now, so we can have them inline
in the articles)


--
Cheers,

John.

Awesome.

Adam

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Dave Osborne wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:

I would, however, query the comment which goes with C-Plan about
being completely obsolete and unsuitable for either new systems or
refurbishments. I agree about new systems, but there are still a lot
of gravity HW systems out there which would benefit from being
converted to C-Plan - which requires very little plumbing and
delivers considerable efficiency improvements relative to the status
quo. The only downside compared with a fully pumped system is that
when just HW is being heated, the boiler is on for longer than it
otherwise would be - albeit cycling on its stat rather than firing
continuously. Does anyone have any evidence that this does not meet
Part-L, and
would thus presumably be illegal as an upgrade from a 'conventional'
gravity HW/pumped CH system?

I found a website which stated this:

"Recent changes to the Building Regulations have made semi-gravity
non-compliant, so fully pumped is the only layout currently suitable
for new installations. The Building Regulations now control boiler
replacements too, and effectively require conversion of semi-gravity
systems to fully-pumped whenever a boiler is replaced."

Clearly, the author of the above doesn't cite his sources and I have
to say I didn't check them either. If you think the above statement is
********, then please let me know.


The statement, as it stands, may well be correct - but it doesn't cover
the situation where a zone valve is inserted into an existing gravity
system to convert it to a C-Plan *without* changing the boiler. I have
occasionally - via this NG - suggested that people should consider this
option when they complain either that the HW gets *too* hot or that they
have to turn the boiler stat down to prevent this - with the result that
the rads are not hot enough. A C-Plan system solves this problem by
providing independent control of HW and CH *and* provides a boiler
interlock - ensuring that the boiler switches off when both demands are
satisfied.

Am I suggesting that they do something which is *illegal*?

I think you've done a great job with the diagrams!
--
Cheers,
Roger


I would suggest that installing a new boiler and keeping a C plan in place
or installing a new boiler and installing a C Plan would not meet part L.

Installing a C plan in an existing gravity HW system would be good practice
according to the regs. Best practice of course being the fully pumped set
up.

Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:



I would suggest that installing a new boiler and keeping a C plan in
place or installing a new boiler and installing a C Plan would not meet
part L.

Installing a C plan in an existing gravity HW system would be good
practice according to the regs. Best practice of course being the fully
pumped set up.

Adam



OK, I see you guys are making a distinction between the basic plumbing
arrangement and the control arrangement, which I wasn't really doing.

I see now that you could have "C-plan water" with more primitive
controls than C-plan and therefore, without changing the boiler or the
pipework system, you could improve an existing system by adding
additional/better/more flexible controls.

That does kind of make my note on the C-plan water schematic a little
too black-and-white. So, I'm thinking of taking it off the drawing.
Somebody can explain in the accompanying text on the wiki, OK? Volunteers?

John wants all the individual pictures redone anyway (they currently
have transparent backgrounds), so I'm going to have to do a partial
reissue either way.

Dave Osborne wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:



I would suggest that installing a new boiler and keeping a C plan in
place or installing a new boiler and installing a C Plan would not
meet part L.

Installing a C plan in an existing gravity HW system would be good
practice according to the regs. Best practice of course being the
fully pumped set up.

Adam



OK, I see you guys are making a distinction between the basic plumbing
arrangement and the control arrangement, which I wasn't really doing.

I see now that you could have "C-plan water" with more primitive
controls than C-plan and therefore, without changing the boiler or the
pipework system, you could improve an existing system by adding
additional/better/more flexible controls.

You could keep and existing cylinder and boiler, but add a zone valve,
a cylinder stat, new programmer etc, making a gravity only system fully
C Plan, and that would not involve a controlled activity and would hence
be ok.

The phrase "controls" is not limited to just the wiring, but includes
the valves (and hence plumbing), stats, programmers etc as well.

That does kind of make my note on the C-plan water schematic a little
too black-and-white. So, I'm thinking of taking it off the drawing.
Somebody can explain in the accompanying text on the wiki, OK? Volunteers?

Yup, I would go for that...

John wants all the individual pictures redone anyway (they currently

Such a cruel task master; mush mush!

have transparent backgrounds), so I'm going to have to do a partial
reissue either way.

Re file names - its probably better if you drop the Revn bit from the
end since the wiki will track the various versions of the files as they
are updated. It also saves having to change the links in the articles
with each diagram update (although I will need to do them once to dro
the Rev bit ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

snip a load of stuff


Re file names - its probably better if you drop the Revn bit from the
end since the wiki will track the various versions of the files as they
are updated. It also saves having to change the links in the articles
with each diagram update (although I will need to do them once to dro
the Rev bit ;-)



Oh tut tut. Y'aint a proper engineer, then...

How about I'll keep the Revn bit - If you want to drop it when you
post, that's up to you. ;-) I need to know where I'm up to and what I've
issued.

Anyway, they aren't likely to change much are they? Are they?

So, anybody else got any further comments before I reissue at Rev 1.1? :-P

Dave Osborne wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

snip a load of stuff


Re file names - its probably better if you drop the Revn bit from
the end since the wiki will track the various versions of the files as
they are updated. It also saves having to change the links in the
articles with each diagram update (although I will need to do them
once to dro the Rev bit ;-)



Oh tut tut. Y'aint a proper engineer, then...

Or one who uses RCS ;-)

(to be fair, version numbering docs in the file name is standard
practice, but not source files (which are versioned in the header
comments) - a picture could be thought of as either depending on context)


How about I'll keep the Revn bit - If you want to drop it when you
post, that's up to you. ;-) I need to know where I'm up to and what I've
issued.

Anyway, they aren't likely to change much are they? Are they?

Probably not...

So, anybody else got any further comments before I reissue at Rev 1.1? :-P

Nope, fire away...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:28:40 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Dave Osborne
wrote:

So, anybody else got any further comments before I reissue at Rev 1.1? :-P

Only that it might be an idea to add a rider that the colours etc are
specific to that Honeywell valve. I believe other valve manufacturers
may differ, as mentioned here
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/plumbing/co...ls.html#valves

Phil