On Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, "Gazz" wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news They've all been about 6 inches off the ground.


ALL of them?

I can assure you that the one at my parents first floor holiday
appartment
is not six inches above the ground

Trust you to find an exception.


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

You only have to peruse the threads where his postings make up to one
third to one half of the thread content to see that he's a trolling
****wit who simply wants to be the centre of attention in any thread
he can hijack for his own amusement.

The uk.d-i-y news group must look like an iiresistable barrel of fish
for the lesser trolls to shoot into. There's no point whatsoever in
trying to argue with uncle pete so you might as well ignore any of his
postings (he's what the 'killfile' feature in any respectable news
reader was designed for).

The usual advice in regard of trolls is embodied in the well worn
adage, "Don't feed the trolls!". Please take heed of this, it's very
sound advice.
--
Regards, J B Good

On 07/05/2014 20:55, Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, "Gazz" wrote:

The uk.d-i-y news group must look like an iiresistable barrel of fish
for the lesser trolls to shoot into. There's no point whatsoever in
trying to argue with uncle pete so you might as well ignore any of his
postings (he's what the 'killfile' feature in any respectable news
reader was designed for).

I don't object to a small amount of engagement, since the information
posted is still accurate, useful, and findable in a subsequent web
search, even if the person notionally seeking it does not care for it.

Look back at all the crap dribble used to post - however that did not
stop some of the threads being quite informative even if 50% of the
posts were his deranged ramblings.

The usual advice in regard of trolls is embodied in the well worn
adage, "Don't feed the trolls!". Please take heed of this, it's very
sound advice.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 08 May 2014 01:46:06 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/05/2014 20:55, Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, "Gazz" wrote:

The uk.d-i-y news group must look like an iiresistable barrel of fish
for the lesser trolls to shoot into. There's no point whatsoever in
trying to argue with uncle pete so you might as well ignore any of his
postings (he's what the 'killfile' feature in any respectable news
reader was designed for).

I don't object to a small amount of engagement, since the information
posted is still accurate, useful, and findable in a subsequent web
search, even if the person notionally seeking it does not care for it.

That's the positive effect of his posting behaviour. Perhaps he sees
himself as playing the role of "Idiot's Advocate" to allow others to
'shine through' the murk of disinformation.


Look back at all the crap dribble used to post - however that did not
stop some of the threads being quite informative even if 50% of the
posts were his deranged ramblings.

I'm not familiar with 'dribble' so I can't comment.

The usual advice in regard of trolls is embodied in the well worn
adage, "Don't feed the trolls!". Please take heed of this, it's very
sound advice.

I was trying to alert the rest of the group that there is a standard
solution to the problem of troll postings since they seem to be
oblivious to this feature. I'd use it myself if I wasn't so cheap as
to stick with the free version of Agent which, unconscionably, is a
crippled version of the payware one lacking a working killfile
function.

I've seen far worse trolling activity in other newsgroups. Uncle
Pete's postings do at least seem to lack any malice. I suspect he's
tolerated on account of his amusing sig lines which can raise a huge
chuckle every now and then (unlike some, whose sig lines consist of
irritatingly out of context quotes taken from a singular genre of Sci-
Fi literature).
--
Regards, J B Good

On 08/05/2014 11:09, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 01:46:06 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/05/2014 20:55, Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, "Gazz" wrote:

The uk.d-i-y news group must look like an iiresistable barrel of fish
for the lesser trolls to shoot into. There's no point whatsoever in
trying to argue with uncle pete so you might as well ignore any of his
postings (he's what the 'killfile' feature in any respectable news
reader was designed for).

I don't object to a small amount of engagement, since the information
posted is still accurate, useful, and findable in a subsequent web
search, even if the person notionally seeking it does not care for it.

That's the positive effect of his posting behaviour. Perhaps he sees
himself as playing the role of "Idiot's Advocate" to allow others to
'shine through' the murk of disinformation.


Look back at all the crap dribble used to post - however that did not
stop some of the threads being quite informative even if 50% of the
posts were his deranged ramblings.

I'm not familiar with 'dribble' so I can't comment.

Legendary poster to this group under a string of serial (ans sometimes
parallel nyms) Aka IMM, News, Dr Evil, Dr Drivel and various others.
Considered himself the worlds gift to plumbing but seemed to advocate
combi boilers (or more likely two of them!) to the solution to the
worlds woe's... e.g.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...-y/IVLbP1TZ2vU[1-25-false]

The usual advice in regard of trolls is embodied in the well worn
adage, "Don't feed the trolls!". Please take heed of this, it's very
sound advice.

I was trying to alert the rest of the group that there is a standard
solution to the problem of troll postings since they seem to be
oblivious to this feature. I'd use it myself if I wasn't so cheap as
to stick with the free version of Agent which, unconscionably, is a
crippled version of the payware one lacking a working killfile
function.

I've seen far worse trolling activity in other newsgroups. Uncle
Pete's postings do at least seem to lack any malice. I suspect he's
tolerated on account of his amusing sig lines which can raise a huge
chuckle every now and then (unlike some, whose sig lines consist of
irritatingly out of context quotes taken from a singular genre of Sci-
Fi literature).

We have certainly had worse in here in the past. ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:10:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 19:19, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 18:51:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 04/05/2014 13:51, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:36 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news



ALL of them?

I can assure you that the one at my parents first floor holiday
appartment
is not six inches above the ground

Trust you to find an exception.


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will
be impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually be allowed to do any jobs.


Tell you what - next time you install a boiler, why don't you just
solder a stopend over the PRV outlet pipe, and put a note on it saying
its not required because are not a pansy.

We are sure to be impressed by your manliness.

I never said not to allow it to expel pressure, I said not to bother concealing it from a person who most likely isn't stood right next to it.

--
User has insufficient intelligence to complete this task, please insert a new user.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter writes
Any pipes configured like this are ones which are likely to spout very hot
water in the event of a problem with the equipment like a boiler; ie, they
aren't simply overflows from a cold water cistern. Therefore the intention
is that any such water (which could emerge at force) is deliberately
directed safely at a wall, rather than sprayed over or dripped on a passer
by.

Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.



Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3 bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and be in contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer bugger all heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of it, and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

--
Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter writes
Any pipes configured like this are ones which are likely to spout very
hot
water in the event of a problem with the equipment like a boiler; ie,
they
aren't simply overflows from a cold water cistern. Therefore the
intention
is that any such water (which could emerge at force) is deliberately
directed safely at a wall, rather than sprayed over or dripped on a
passer
by.

Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.



Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3 bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and be in
contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer bugger all
heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt
slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of it,
and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

Go and give Bod a blow job and stop talking ********:-)


--
Adam

On Fri, 09 May 2014 19:11:08 +0100, ARW wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter writes


Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.



Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3 bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and be in
contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer bugger all
heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt
slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of it,
and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

Go and give Bod a blow job and stop talking ********:-)

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess what, no mark. That's because it bounced off.

--
There are two sides to every divorce:
Yours and the stupid idiot's.

On 10/05/2014 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess
what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

Ah, yes, but as well as its claimed immunity to electric shocks, Uncle
Peter has Teflon skin, as is recommended for outdoor robots. It's got a
degree, you know....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 10/05/2014 08:47, John Williamson wrote:
On 10/05/2014 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess
what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

Ah, yes, but as well as its claimed immunity to electric shocks, Uncle
Peter has Teflon skin, as is recommended for outdoor robots. It's got a
degree, you know....

Yes, in Insanity. I believe he is now a fully fledged Sociopath.

On Sat, 10 May 2014 08:39:23 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2014 19:11:08 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter writes


Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.

Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3 bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and be in
contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer bugger all
heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt
slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of it,
and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

Go and give Bod a blow job and stop talking ********:-)

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

It splatters, it's in contact with your skin for not long at all.

And another thing, if the water comes out at 3 bar, directly onto the pebbledash, and someone is stood next to it, they'll most likely get a bit of dislodged pebbledash in their eye. I'd rather the hot water.

--
Two Irish couples decided to swap partners for the night.
After 3 hours of amazing sex, Paddy says "I wonder how the girls are getting on".

On Sat, 10 May 2014 08:47:05 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

On 10/05/2014 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess
what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

Ah, yes, but as well as its claimed immunity to electric shocks, Uncle
Peter has Teflon skin, as is recommended for outdoor robots. It's got a
degree, you know....

No, I'm just not a ****ing pussy like you.

--
If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 10/05/2014 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2014 19:11:08 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter
writes


Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting
for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.

Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary
whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been
assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend
on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near
boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your
comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3
bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and
be in
contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer
bugger all
heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt
slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of
it,
and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

Go and give Bod a blow job and stop talking ********:-)

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess
what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

To be fair it depends on how hot a thing it hits... ;-)

(i.e. hot enough, and the Liedenfrost effect kicks in - and with the
rate of hot air production from Unc, who knows?)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:56:21 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 10/05/2014 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2014 19:11:08 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:47:48 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

In article ,
Bill writes:
In message , Uncle Peter
writes


Oh dear, typical modern health and softy bull****, accounting
for a 1
in a billion chance of slightly hurting someone.

Oh dear, typical argumentative comment.

You've had a perfectly accurate and rational answer given to your
question, why prolong the thread with further unnecessary
whinging about
something that is a definite and serious risk that has been
assessed and
reduced to almost nil by the simple procedure of putting a bend
on the
pipe?

"slightly hurting someone" if you ever get boiling, or near
boiling,
water poured onto you, from what ever source, just remember your
comment
that it only slightly hurts.

BTW, it's not boiling water, it's superheated water and steam, which
is very much worse - could be around 150C if released just above 3
bar.

And at 3 bar it would come out so fast it would bounce off you and
be in
contact with your skin for a fraction of a second, so transfer
bugger all
heat to you. If you're splashed with boiling water, it might hurt
slightly and leave no mark, but try dipping your hand into a pan of
it,
and your skin will be severely damaged. Heat transfer requires time.

Go and give Bod a blow job and stop talking ********:-)

I splashed some hot oil on myself while cooking a pancake, and guess
what,
no mark. That's because it bounced off.

Water doesn't bounce. It's soggy.

To be fair it depends on how hot a thing it hits... ;-)

(i.e. hot enough, and the Liedenfrost effect kicks in - and with the
rate of hot air production from Unc, who knows?)

I breath common sense. I ignore regulations that protect you from a chance smaller than winning the lottery.

--
What is the difference between a chicken and a baby?
A chicken is the result of a sitting hen while the baby is the result of a standing cock.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, Gazz wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news



ALL of them?

I can assure you that the one at my parents first floor holiday
appartment
is not six inches above the ground

Trust you to find an exception.


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

I'm too scared to do it without a hivis jacket ain't a valid answer.

--
The German for nipple is "Brustwarze" - or "breast wart".

On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:21:53 +0100, Huge wrote:

On 2014-05-07, Gazz wrote:


[19 lines snipped]

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

He's a troll, and a very good one, being fed and nurtured by people who
don't realise that the only way to treat trolls is to killfile and ignore
them.

And you're so ****ing thick you can't handle an opinion different to your own, so you just call it a troll.

--
Attila the Hun died during a bout of rough sex where his partner broke his nose causing a haemorrhage.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:04:20 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 07/05/2014 11:34, Gazz wrote:


Trust you to find an exception.


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will
be impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of
your many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you
seem to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend
the next week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

I expect he knows the answer in advance (or at least, thinks he does)
and just wants a platform to tell us how manly he is, and why things
that risk death and injury for others are mere trifles for him.

He can then bask in our admiration....

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

--
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent. -- Arthur C. Clarke

On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:15:36 +0100, ARW wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2014 11:34, Gazz wrote:


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will
be impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of
your many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you
seem to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend
the next week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

I expect he knows the answer in advance (or at least, thinks he does) and
just wants a platform to tell us how manly he is, and why things that
risk death and injury for others are mere trifles for him.

He can then bask in our admiration....

And it's me that actually gets injured (face burnt by petrol
explosion/falling of ladder/bad burn on the arm from 15mm copper (that is
still scarred after 10 years but at least it is no longer in the shape off
15mm copper)/broken ankle from falling off a 3cm kerb/finger sliced deep
open at 8m height when it was trapped between SWA and a cable tray/run over
on zebra crossing that had a lollipop lady stood there with a STOP sign (I
got a fractured skull in that one)/knocked out with cricket bat in an
improvised game of baseball (beer was involved and so were 13 stitches) etc

See.

--
Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden"...and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 20:55:35 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

On Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:38 +0100, "Gazz" wrote:



Trust you to find an exception.


It'll be placed at the most convenient place, subject to regulation.
Mine's at the same level as the boiler, so about 1.5m above ground.

I think the 180 degree bend, pointing the pipe into the wall, is a
perfectly valid and elegant solution.

Your mileage obviously varies.

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

You only have to peruse the threads where his postings make up to one
third to one half of the thread content to see that he's a trolling
****wit who simply wants to be the centre of attention in any thread
he can hijack for his own amusement.

Wrong again. I just abhor the stupid opinions in here.

The uk.d-i-y news group must look like an iiresistable barrel of fish
for the lesser trolls to shoot into. There's no point whatsoever in
trying to argue with uncle pete so you might as well ignore any of his
postings (he's what the 'killfile' feature in any respectable news
reader was designed for).

Yes, there is no point in arguing when you're just plain wrong. My side of the argument has reasoning, your side is "because that's the way it is".

The usual advice in regard of trolls is embodied in the well worn
adage, "Don't feed the trolls!". Please take heed of this, it's very
sound advice.

Grow up you pathetic little weed.

--
Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden"...and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:04:51 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:11, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:13:01 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


What's a Megaflow?


http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Unvented_DHW

Why not just get a combi boiler if you want mains pressure hot water?


Two main reasons (as covered in the article above):

High flow rates of hot water at "mix temperature" [1], ideal for
properties with multiple showers / baths - good at showers, and also
fast bath filling.

Can be heated by multiple sources, e.g. gas boiler, immersion heater,
solar collector.

[1] i.e. water at higher than final use temperature that you will mix
down by the addition of cold water.

A combi[2] can only deliver hot water a a maximum rate dictated by the
power of the boiler and the capacity of the gas meter, and its less easy
to provide a backup should the boiler fail.

[2] Storage combis in effect include a unvented cylinder in the case of
the boiler and hence can perform better for a limited period.

I see. I've never thought up a need for a huge amount of hot water at once.

--
I just sent my lawyer something for his birthday. Unfortunately, he wasn't home when it went off.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 20:27:16 +0100, ARW wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:11, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:13:01 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


What's a Megaflow?


http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Unvented_DHW

Why not just get a combi boiler if you want mains pressure hot water?

Two main reasons (as covered in the article above):

A combi[2] can only deliver hot water a a maximum rate dictated by the
power of the boiler and the capacity of the gas meter, and its less easy
to provide a backup should the boiler fail.

No gas here.

There oil and LPG combi boilers available.

Now stop it - you will upset Peter and his cartoon charcter plumber
friend:-).

How could saying there is no gas upset me?

--
Reboot - to kick a computer in such a way that it turns off and then on again.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 22:40:32 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , ARW
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:11, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:13:01 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

What's a Megaflow?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Unvented_DHW

Why not just get a combi boiler if you want mains pressure hot water?

Two main reasons (as covered in the article above):

A combi[2] can only deliver hot water a a maximum rate dictated by the
power of the boiler and the capacity of the gas meter, and its less easy
to provide a backup should the boiler fail.

No gas here.

There oil and LPG combi boilers available.

I'll check with my plumber friend as to why he didn't offer us one then.

Now stop it - you will upset Peter and his cartoon charcter plumber
friend:-).

Unc needs to get a grip.

Are you offering?

--
A sheet of sandpaper makes a cheap and effective substitute for costly maps when visiting the Sahara desert.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 17:01:53 +0100, Mathew Newton wrote:

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:49:41 PM UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:

Chances are it wouldn't start squirting precisely as someone walks past.
If it's already squirting, they would avoid it.

The nature of a PRV opening is such that there'd be no warning and be of very short duration. Chances are indeed low that it would occur precisely as someone walks past but many 'accidents' are often the result of an unfortunate occurance of multiple instances.

And very very rare indeed.

Besides which, why not curve it to the wall? The PRV opening should be neither regular or persistant and so shouldn't cause damage.

I saw one the other day that had gone off at some point. The wall was stained. But.... the end of the pipe was about 3mm from the wall, yet the stain was only 30 degrees from vertically down on each side of it, and the harling was intact. Which suggests it does not come out forcefully at all.

--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

--
WEDDING DRESS FOR SALE.
Worn once by mistake.
Call Stephanie.

On 26/05/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

So, with your claimed superior knowledge if the English language, why
didn't you write that? All we have to go on is what you type on the
screen, we're not mind readers who "just know" what you mean.

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:37:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

On 26/05/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

So, with your claimed superior knowledge if the English language, why
didn't you write that? All we have to go on is what you type on the
screen, we're not mind readers who "just know" what you mean.

If the English language?

Not mind readers? What you mean is you interpret English like a computer program.

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

--
What do you call an Amish man with his arm up a horse's ass?
A mechanic.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:40:27 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:37:45 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 26/05/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

So, with your claimed superior knowledge if the English language, why
didn't you write that? All we have to go on is what you type on the
screen, we're not mind readers who "just know" what you mean.

If the English language?

Not mind readers? What you mean is you interpret English like a computer
program.

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned
about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

I wasn't talking about a random bod in the group of 100k. I was
specifically talking about the one whose bad luck it was to become the
dead one. Can't you read?

What's the point in only concentrating on him? Are you a journalist?

--
Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:06:43 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:40:27 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:37:45 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 26/05/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

So, with your claimed superior knowledge if the English language, why
didn't you write that? All we have to go on is what you type on the
screen, we're not mind readers who "just know" what you mean.

If the English language?

Not mind readers? What you mean is you interpret English like a computer
program.

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned
about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

I wasn't talking about a random bod in the group of 100k. I was
specifically talking about the one whose bad luck it was to become the
dead one. Can't you read?

What's the point in only concentrating on him? Are you a journalist?

Because of your sloppy post earlier. If you'd said: "10% chance of
death is significant to most people, 0.001% is much less so." we all
would have nodded and passed on. You've already been taken to task over
that and now I'm doing it too.

Childish pedant.

--
Confucius say: "Man who run in front of car get tired"

On Mon, 26 May 2014 18:36:26 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 16:06:43 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:40:27 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:37:45 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 26/05/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 11:56:42 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

10% chance of death is a risk. 0.001% is not.

Yes it is. Just one of a different size.

I obviously meant "it's not a risk worth bothering about".

So, with your claimed superior knowledge if the English language, why
didn't you write that? All we have to go on is what you type on the
screen, we're not mind readers who "just know" what you mean.

If the English language?

Not mind readers? What you mean is you interpret English like a
computer
program.

0.001% is 1 in 100,000.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to that one that they didn't take a
risk.

Why focus on that one and not the other 99,999?

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a
risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned
about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

I wasn't talking about a random bod in the group of 100k. I was
specifically talking about the one whose bad luck it was to become the
dead one. Can't you read?

What's the point in only concentrating on him? Are you a journalist?

Because of your sloppy post earlier. If you'd said: "10% chance of
death is significant to most people, 0.001% is much less so." we all
would have nodded and passed on. You've already been taken to task over
that and now I'm doing it too.

Childish pedant.

No, just noting your habit of talking cock.

My habit of not being childishly and unnecessarily precise.

--
The Red Cross just knocked on my door and asked if we could contribute towards the floods in Lebanon.
I said we'd love to, but our garden hose only reaches the driveway.

On 26/05/2014 15:26, Uncle Peter wrote:
But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned
about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

Depends.

If you tell me there's a one in 100k chance I'll die on the way to work,
and I'm going to do that trip for the next 10 years - that suddenly
becomes about 1 in 40...

Andy

John Williamson wrote:

Just stating an opinion based on fact, I'd say. There is always a risk,
and for the 1 in 100,000, it turned out to be a certainty, not a
possibility.

That's right. When a surgeon tells you that some op that you're being
offered has, say, a 10% mortality risk, it doesn't mean that 1 in 10 will
die but not to worry because it won't be you.

The choice needs to be made by comparing one's outlook with no op (eg
imminent expiry anyway) against the possibility that the op will go ok.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

On 25/05/2014 22:49, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:21:53 +0100, Huge wrote:

On 2014-05-07, Gazz wrote:


[19 lines snipped]

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it
will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of
your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you
seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend
the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

He's a troll, and a very good one, being fed and nurtured by people who
don't realise that the only way to treat trolls is to killfile and ignore
them.

And you're so ****ing thick you can't handle an opinion different to
your own, so you just call it a troll.

No, I think its known as the duck test....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it all probability, its a duck.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 27 May 2014 12:39:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 25/05/2014 22:49, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:21:53 +0100, Huge wrote:

On 2014-05-07, Gazz wrote:


[19 lines snipped]

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it
will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind, you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of
your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you
seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend
the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

He's a troll, and a very good one, being fed and nurtured by people who
don't realise that the only way to treat trolls is to killfile and ignore
them.

And you're so ****ing thick you can't handle an opinion different to
your own, so you just call it a troll.

No, I think its known as the duck test....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it all probability, its a duck.

Ther are none so blind as those who cannot see.

--
Computers can never replace human stupidity.

On 27/05/2014 12:54, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 12:39:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 25/05/2014 22:49, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:21:53 +0100, Huge
wrote:

On 2014-05-07, Gazz wrote:


[19 lines snipped]

Give it another 30 years and there will be so many regulations it
will be
impossible to do anything without contradicting one of them. It'll
also
take our entire working lives to learn them all, so nobody will
actually
be allowed to do any jobs.

With a bit of luck you'll be long dead and buried by then, mind,
you'll
prolly be denying you are actually dead because it dosent fit one of
your
many skewed illogical ideas,

I can't be the only one wondering if you have much of a life, all you
seem
to do is post a question, get a perfectly valid answer, then spend
the next
week or 2 arguing because you don't like the answer you got,

He's a troll, and a very good one, being fed and nurtured by people who
don't realise that the only way to treat trolls is to killfile and
ignore
them.

And you're so ****ing thick you can't handle an opinion different to
your own, so you just call it a troll.

No, I think its known as the duck test....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it all probability, its a duck.

Ther are none so blind as those who cannot see.

Sorry, what did you quack?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 27 May 2014 13:07:16 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 27/05/2014 12:54, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 12:39:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 25/05/2014 22:49, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:21:53 +0100, Huge
wrote:

On 2014-05-07, Gazz wrote:


[19 lines snipped]



He's a troll, and a very good one, being fed and nurtured by people who
don't realise that the only way to treat trolls is to killfile and
ignore
them.

And you're so ****ing thick you can't handle an opinion different to
your own, so you just call it a troll.

No, I think its known as the duck test....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it all probability, its a duck.

Ther are none so blind as those who cannot see.

Sorry, what did you quack?

It's not important, you're beyond help.

--
I hate it when people compare Clint Eastwood to God. Don't get me wrong, he's incredible! But he's no Clint Eastwood.

On Mon, 26 May 2014 21:49:57 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 26/05/2014 15:26, Uncle Peter wrote:
But taking a person at random, there is no point in him being concerned
about it bec use chances are he'll be in the 99,999.

Depends.

If you tell me there's a one in 100k chance I'll die on the way to work,
and I'm going to do that trip for the next 10 years - that suddenly
becomes about 1 in 40...

The chance of the pipe will be even less than 1 in 100K.

And I've now seen three of them that have vented, onto the wall, leaving an unsightly stain. And all of them showed with the pattern of water that it was not at any pressure at all.

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:30:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:08, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 01:59:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 03/05/2014 18:24, Uncle Peter wrote:

Why do I keep seeing overflow pipes (or boiler condenser pipes, or
whatever they are) on people's houses with the pipe curved round 180
degrees so it faces the wall?

If we are talking about the pressure relieve pipe, then that is because
this is the correct way to install them. They should never normally
carry water, so getting a wall wet etc is of no concern. However if they
do operate, they could eject near boiling water with some force - so
making sure this does not hit someone is important.

Why is it important to stop something that almost never happens from

Why do you incorrectly assume it almost never happens?

The number of posts that you read here with the complaint that the
system pressure drops each time the boiler gets hot (typically because
of a failed expansion vessel) should make it evident that while is
designed to operate only in response to a fault, once the fault
condition exists it may well operate several times a day.

But someone has to be stood next to the pipe, have pathetic reactions speeds, not be wearing jeans, and be bothered by getting a hot ankle.

--
Very funny, Scotty... Now beam down my clothes!

On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:24:26 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:40, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 14:22:33 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:19:13 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 04/05/2014 12:06, Uncle Peter wrote:




In which case you could well have a PRV pipe... they are not
specific to
combis, but to sealed systems.

I thought combi and sealed were one and the same. A system boiler has a
header tank into which it bubbles into.


No. And it is possible to use a combi with a header tank.

I thought combi had to be sealed to have pressure to heat hot water.

No. All a combi needs to be able to do is divert the flow of primary
water through a plate heat exchanger rather than the radiator circuit.

Why would you need pressure to heat hot water?

No idea, but everyone I know with a Combi has a dial for pressure reading.

--
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm ****ing bored!"
Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!"
Unknown aircraft: "I said I was ****ing bored, not ****ing stupid!"

On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:22:41 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:09, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:19:13 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 04/05/2014 12:06, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2014 10:23:01 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news


Worried it will damage the wall?

I would think it better not to have your wall soaking wet.

I don't have such a thing so I don't care. I don't have a combi. I
have a system boiler, and the overflow of the header tank is on the
eaves, stuck out straight, as is traditional.

In which case you could well have a PRV pipe... they are not specific to
combis, but to sealed systems.

I thought combi and sealed were one and the same.

No - no relation. Many combis use sealed systems - although there are
some that will run with a vented primary system.

Many system boilers are also designed for sealed operation. Although
again there are exception.

A system boiler has a
header tank into which it bubbles into.

No, a system boiler is simply a boiler that contains most of the system
components in one box - so the boiler, and the pump, at a minimum, and
in the case of a sealed system one, the expansion vessel, and PRV valve
+ over temperature cutouts as well.

Oh, I have a traditional heating system, just the boiler is in the boiler housing. The pump is in the loft. I have a header tank and a hot water cylinder with a cold tank above it. I thought this was called a system boiler. What is mine called then?

--
If god is so amazing, why did the dinosaurs die out?

On 28/05/2014 16:07, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:24:26 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/05/2014 14:40, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 14:22:33 +0100, ARW
wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news On Mon, 05 May 2014 02:19:13 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 04/05/2014 12:06, Uncle Peter wrote:




In which case you could well have a PRV pipe... they are not
specific to
combis, but to sealed systems.

I thought combi and sealed were one and the same. A system boiler
has a
header tank into which it bubbles into.


No. And it is possible to use a combi with a header tank.

I thought combi had to be sealed to have pressure to heat hot water.

No. All a combi needs to be able to do is divert the flow of primary
water through a plate heat exchanger rather than the radiator circuit.

Why would you need pressure to heat hot water?

No idea, but everyone I know with a Combi has a dial for pressure reading.

Depending on how hot it runs, parts of the heat exchanger can get hotter
than the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure. Pressurising
the water raises the boiling point, so you get less turbulence, and
hence less noise and possible damage to the heat exchanger.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.