Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this,
not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer.
This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably
paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix
NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we
took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits
of other foams outside.


Now - I was expecting "fire rated" to mean "itumescent" and to not only
not support combustion, but to char over or something.

Well - it does not support combustion - but it does burn. Rather like
celotex. Hold a flame to it, it burns, take flame away, it goes out.

The yellow foam I tried actually was not much worse - it did flare for a
bit, but seemed to char and go out.

However, some green foam went like a bloody firework. Needless to say, I
really was unimpressed.

I have no idea what the other makes were - I used the yellow stuff, so
it was *probably* Screwfix no nonsense.

The green stuff was used by the roofers in odd places to make sure the
celotext stayed in place. Dunno what make that was - but this was 4
years ago.


The mitigating factor is 95% is being covered by more celotex and
plasterboard. However, there are odd bits in the eaves - which I have
been cutting out where they've formed blobs - and I've already cleared
it where it enveloped electrical cables - just because it seemed like a
bad idea. Most cables pass through the insulation in PVC conduit which
does not support combustion - but there are cables that come straight up
from the walls past the insulation.


I'm of a mind, after trimming back any excesses, to give the exposed
parts a coat of in-tumescent paint.


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

On 25/05/16 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Polystyrene (and other combustible) foam is suitable for use under
floor screeds or underground as stress reliever or insulation where the
chances of it catching alight are an order less than a meteorite
obliterating Bradford


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this,
not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer.
This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably
paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix
NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we
took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits
of other foams outside.


"old bits". That might be significant. You don't suppose your new stuff was
still full of propellant?

Tim

--
Trolls and troll feeders go in my killfile

On 25/05/16 19:36, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this,
not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer.
This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably
paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix
NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we
took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits
of other foams outside.


"old bits". That might be significant. You don't suppose your new stuff was
still full of propellant?

Tim


It was the old bit that went Woomph.

The new stuff was fine. Unless you are thinking that the propellent was
not a source of fuel, but the old stuff was full or air in the cells?

In which case, the two old bits (4 years or so) were of the same vitage
and yellow was not bad but green was much worse.

On 25/05/16 19:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Polystyrene (and other combustible) foam is suitable for use under
floor screeds or underground as stress reliever or insulation where the
chances of it catching alight are an order less than a meteorite
obliterating Bradford



Well, that's true - but wouldn't most jablite be fire retardent treated
by default anyway?

I am just thinking of the fact that everyone everywhere - window
fitters, plumbers, builders, are spraying random foam into every nook
and cranny. Most of them will not be buying fire rated as it costs a few
pounds (literally £4 or so) more than a full can of non fire rated.

But given a typical job (insulation, window fitting) even on a whole
house will use less than 10-15 cans even on a bad day, who cares?

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

On 25/05/2016 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the past -
one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour and
is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from "normal"
yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know how
it compares.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on
felty pipe insulation!)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 25/05/2016 19:36, Tim+ wrote:


"old bits". That might be significant. You don't suppose your new stuff was
still full of propellant?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBi5ciuZcPE


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 25/05/16 21:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the past -

One of them might have been SX - rings a bell...


one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour and
is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from "normal"
yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know how
it compares.

Maybe my yellow has been exposed to the light more. However, it did
combust in a very different way.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on
felty pipe insulation!)


Oooh... I'm just really surprised this stuff passes any sorts of
standards. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

On 5/25/2016 7:23 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this,
not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer.
This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably
paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix
NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we
took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits
of other foams outside.


Now - I was expecting "fire rated" to mean "itumescent" and to not only
not support combustion, but to char over or something.

Well - it does not support combustion - but it does burn. Rather like
celotex. Hold a flame to it, it burns, take flame away, it goes out.

The yellow foam I tried actually was not much worse - it did flare for a
bit, but seemed to char and go out.

However, some green foam went like a bloody firework. Needless to say, I
really was unimpressed.


I've always been suspicious of anything green.....

On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 5/25/2016 7:23 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...

If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this,
not fecked about with hoovers.

Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer.
This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably
paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix
NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.

Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we
took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits
of other foams outside.


Now - I was expecting "fire rated" to mean "itumescent" and to not only
not support combustion, but to char over or something.

Well - it does not support combustion - but it does burn. Rather like
celotex. Hold a flame to it, it burns, take flame away, it goes out.

The yellow foam I tried actually was not much worse - it did flare for a
bit, but seemed to char and go out.

However, some green foam went like a bloody firework. Needless to say, I
really was unimpressed.


I've always been suspicious of anything green.....

That certainly explains the whip marks on your arse when you wouldn't eat
your greens.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting for
fire safety.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well as
incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could save
energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

They claim that forcing the manufacturers to limit the
motors in their vacuums, they are forcing them to have
more efficient designs that still do the job well with
lower power motors. How true that is is another matter.

And how often vacuums are used is too compared with
the electrical heating appliances used in the home.

On 25/05/2016 21:31, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/05/16 21:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the past -

One of them might have been SX - rings a bell...


one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour and
is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from "normal"
yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know how
it compares.

Maybe my yellow has been exposed to the light more. However, it did
combust in a very different way.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on
felty pipe insulation!)


Oooh... I'm just really surprised this stuff passes any sorts of
standards. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

Talking about flaming things...

Big Clive lost for words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcDg...c#t=205.426938




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 25/05/16 22:28, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

No, they are NOT doing what the voters want. They are doing what light
bulb, and vacuum cleaner companies in Europe want, using the Green meme
as an excuse.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have
as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher
efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid
back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.





--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 25/05/16 22:50, Huge wrote:
On 2016-05-25, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

Because most politicians and Greens are idiots.

Greens yes, politicians, not necessarily.

They can be smart and corrupt, or smart and operating on a different set
of principles.

One of the best ever narratives of how 'green' politics can end up doing
insane things for all the right reasons is given by the late Professor
Cohen in his book 'the Nuclear energy option'. He describes a plan to
move some low level radioactive waste from where it was almost certainly
completely safe if concrete was poured on top of it, and put it in a
custom designed and very expensive 'storage facility' at a multi-billion
dollar cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"One last item deserves mention here €” the radiation exposure to workers
in executing the plans described above. It turns out that exposure is
greater in the billion-dollar plan that was adopted than in the plan for
conversion to cement, by an amount that would cause 0.02 deaths (i.e., a
2% chance of a single death) among the workers. Since this is more than
0.01 deaths to the public from the conversion to cement, the
billion-dollar plan is actually more dangerous.

I have met the government officials who chose the billion-dollar plan,
and have discussed these questions with them. They are intelligent
people trying to do their jobs well. But they don't view saving lives as
the relevant question. In their view, their jobs are to respond to
public concern and political pressures. A few irrational zealots in the
Buffalo area stirred up the public there with the cry "We want that
dangerous waste out of our area." Why should any local people oppose
them? Their congressional representatives took that message to
Washington €” what would they have to gain by doing otherwise? The DOE
officials responded to that pressure by asking for the billion-dollar
program. It wasn't hurting them; in fact, having a new billion-dollar
program to administer is a feather in their caps. Congress was told that
a billion dollars was needed to discharge the government's
responsibility in protecting the public from this dangerous waste €” how
could it fail to respond?

That is how a few people with little knowledge or understanding of the
problem induced the United States Government to pour a billion dollars
"down a rathole." I watched every step of the process as it went off as
smooth as glass. And the perpetrators of this mess have become local
heroes to boot."

Well meaning ignorance, cunning greed, desire for power and influence
and someone elses money.

The Left *as it actually is* summed up in a single sentence...

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 26/05/16 01:13, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 21:31, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/05/16 21:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the past -

One of them might have been SX - rings a bell...


one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour and
is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from "normal"
yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know how
it compares.

Maybe my yellow has been exposed to the light more. However, it did
combust in a very different way.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on
felty pipe insulation!)


Oooh... I'm just really surprised this stuff passes any sorts of
standards. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

Talking about flaming things...

Big Clive lost for words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcDg...c#t=205.426938

I saw that! Who invents this stuff...

On 26/05/16 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 22:28, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

No, they are NOT doing what the voters want. They are doing what light
bulb, and vacuum cleaner companies in Europe want, using the Green meme
as an excuse.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have
as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher
efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid
back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.

Me and mate were wondering that as he was helping me to fit extra
celotex - ie how much energy did that celotex take to produce compared
to what it would save.

We concluded a better solution would be to only allow it for insulating
older buildings where space is limited, and require new builts to be
designed to accept 8-10" of sheeps wool (and only sheeps wool - not rock
wool).

It really would not be hard to put a little extra engineered space in
buildings to allow a natural and low energy cost product to be used.

On 26/05/16 07:36, Tim Watts wrote:
On 26/05/16 01:13, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 21:31, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/05/16 21:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Well - I am not impressed...


But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports
combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and
furniture
foam.

Glad I switched to pink foam...

I have used lots of the Toolstation green foam (SX brand?) in the
past -

One of them might have been SX - rings a bell...


one thing I have noted is that with age it has lost its green colour
and
is now indistinguishable (as opposed to inextinguishable!) from
"normal"
yellow foam. Can't say I have tried burning it though, so don't know
how
it compares.

Maybe my yellow has been exposed to the light more. However, it did
combust in a very different way.

(if you want something that burns in a scary way, try that slide on
felty pipe insulation!)


Oooh... I'm just really surprised this stuff passes any sorts of
standards. Still, forewarned is forearmed.

Talking about flaming things...

Big Clive lost for words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcDg...c#t=205.426938

I saw that! Who invents this stuff...

I love the idea of a flaming pussy, to go along with ****s with teeth

(Don't panic Dave, this time it isn't all about you)

--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 26/05/16 07:39, Tim Watts wrote:
On 26/05/16 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 22:28, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

No, they are NOT doing what the voters want. They are doing what light
bulb, and vacuum cleaner companies in Europe want, using the Green meme
as an excuse.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have
as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher
efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid
back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.

Me and mate were wondering that as he was helping me to fit extra
celotex - ie how much energy did that celotex take to produce compared
to what it would save.

We concluded a better solution would be to only allow it for insulating
older buildings where space is limited, and require new builts to be
designed to accept 8-10" of sheeps wool (and only sheeps wool - not rock
wool).

It really would not be hard to put a little extra engineered space in
buildings to allow a natural and low energy cost product to be used.

Do the energy calcs on a castle with one meter plus walls, panelled in
wood and hung with tapestries. You will be surprised.

A victorian single brick house is probably the worst insulated house in
mankind's history.



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

Tim Watts wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Talking about flaming things...
Big Clive lost for words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcDg...c#t=205.426938

I saw that! Who invents this stuff...

Clive himself.

On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:28:16 +0100, GB wrote:

On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with
hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a
significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting
for fire safety.

Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well
as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could
save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.

SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE!!! - but it was done the wrong way.
Vac. manufacturers have been willy-waving for years - bad enough with
cameras and MPx - but stupid with vacs.
Power sells to the stupid; effectivness is irrelevant.
I've a 1400W Nilfisk that's good, but no better than a 25-year-old Numatic
George of 900W, so wot's the watts for? Another half kW to FA.

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 26/05/2016 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have
as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher
efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid
back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.


Not forgetting the rare-earth minerals that are essential for the
manufacture of the high-efficiency motors. And most of the worlds
supply is controlled by China (for now), the worlds biggest
polluter.

On 26/05/16 11:17, Andrew wrote:
On 26/05/2016 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have
as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher
efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid
back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.


Not forgetting the rare-earth minerals that are essential for the
manufacture of the high-efficiency motors. And most of the worlds
supply is controlled by China (for now), the worlds biggest
polluter.

No rare earth in an induction motor. That's for DC permanent magnet
motors like (I assume) Die-Soon's

BTW rare earths aren't particularly rare.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.


That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU
proposal. It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.

On 26/05/16 11:46, GB wrote:
On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.


That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU
proposal. It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.


Sigh. Calculate how long the boiling water is in the kettle, cooling
down, before being poured...

Total waste of money.


Now a heat pump kettle attached to an ice cream machine..



--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 26/05/2016 11:46, GB wrote:
On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.


That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU
proposal. It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.


IIRC it has been argued that as kettles became more powerful, to give
faster boil times, consumers may have been less concerned about heating
more than the water they need as it still boils faster than before. But
I agree the EU is very unlikely to act on power. And IIRC insulation is
also not on the agenda. But I expect (as discussed here before) a
return (after June!) to the possibility of mandating kettles which cut
out at below boiling. After all, most uses other than black tea don't
need boiling water.

I also expect loads of stuff about tests to demonstrate minimum quality
and expected lifetimes. Of course this will mean an end to cheap
kettles designed and made in Asia for a world market. But then the EU
is good at non-tariff trade barriers.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:14:28 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 26/05/2016 11:46, GB wrote:
On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.


That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU
proposal. It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.


IIRC it has been argued that as kettles became more powerful, to give
faster boil times, consumers may have been less concerned about heating
more than the water they need as it still boils faster than before. But
I agree the EU is very unlikely to act on power. And IIRC insulation is
also not on the agenda. But I expect (as discussed here before) a
return (after June!) to the possibility of mandating kettles which cut
out at below boiling. After all, most uses other than black tea don't
need boiling water.

Although I do it at almsot boiling, I flick the kettle off as I almost have
water below the Min. mark and don't want to damage the element.
Seems to work, as kettles last for 10 years+.

--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that
'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.


That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU proposal.

Correct.

It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.

Not if you don’t like stewed hot water and put
fresh water in the kettle every time you use it.

Insulated kettles would help in an office situation
where some refill kettles and turn them on after
they have got the hot water they need themselves,
so the next person can just turn it on again and get
hot water quickly. But kettles don’t make a lot of
sense in an office situation.