On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:35:16 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

From an engineering standpoint at that stage it becomes very much
a corner case to worry about switching everything off.

Yes, but this requires the occupant to turn the heating off depending on the
weather/time of year (and many people won't). Why bother requiring the user
to do this, when a simple electronic device can do it for them. with proper
controls, you can leave your heating on 365 days a year without energy
wastage. Many people do.

I certainly do that because it isn't necessary to turn it off.
However it doesn't require a room stat to achieve that.


In any case, I really don't see the problem with adding an interlock to a
TRV based system. Just put a flow switch after the bypass/always on radiator
and have it cut the boiler demand power. Set the pump to run for programmer
CH on. Job done.

This was part of my point. During the heating season and during
timed heating periods of the day, a modulating boiler will be
supplying heat adequate to balance the heat losses from the building.
The TRVs should be partly open around the set point and the boiler
running continuously at a low modulating level or turning the burner
off because it is producing heat at a greater rate than required.
However there is still a demand for heat - just a small one.
If a room stat were used in this situation, it would have to be set
for a few degrees above this operating temperature or the boiler would
not be able to meet the demand.

If you consider the electricity used to run the pump, it is around 80W
or so. If a boiler modulating down to 3kW comes on for a minute
an hour then that is less energy.

It's in the same league as a light bulb and how many people can say
that they never leave lights switched on when not required.

If you also contrast all of this with a condensing boiler vs. not the
energy saving is substantially greater,

My point was really that much better energy management can be achieved
through the use of a modulating and preferably a condensing boiler.
Given this scenario, adding a room stat is down in the noise in terms
of being worthwhile.

Therefore, for it to be suggested that a room stat is mandatory is
stretching the point from the legislative, economic and the ecological
point of view.


The legislation requires only that reasonable provision is made to
save energy.

I would be surprised if the court (or building control department) decided
that a reasonable provision is a system described in the approved document
with an important feature missing. OK, a totally different system not
directly comparable, but not a suggested system made less efficient. The
approved document describes a suitable simple modification to an all TRV
system that seems perfectly reasonable, reliable and easy to implement and
prevents the wastage of energy.

In the case of conventional, full output on/off boilers, possibly.
The focus is demonstrably on the wrong issues.



Christian.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Therefore, for it to be suggested that a room stat is mandatory
is stretching the point from the legislative, economic and the
ecological point of view.

Ah, but there is no requirement in approved doc Part L1 for a room stat,
just a boiler interlock. It suggests in a non-exhaustive list that room
stats and flow switches are appropriate for this use.

The addition of a flow switch interlock to an all TRV system would have
absolutely no bad effect (beyond the small installation cost) and much good
effect.

The pump would be running all the time, whether the flow switch was
installed or not. The flow switch just causes the primary water to cool down
if all the TRVs are hard off. If they are passing by at all, then the
modulating boiler will be allowed to fire at the low rate. The flow switch
doesn't force a modern low modulating burner to become cyclical.

The 80W from the motor can be saved by additional electronics to cause
occasional pulsing every ten minutes or so, when the flow switch shows no
flow (I see no requirement in Part L1 to do this, however). It would also be
possible to incorporate the entire lot into a combi style boiler, although I
doubt any manufacturers do.

In the case of conventional, full output on/off boilers,
possibly. The focus is demonstrably on the wrong issues.

Only if you assume that people actually turn off the system when it is warm
outside. You can't make this assumption.

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:23:27 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

The legislation does not support that level of detail. That is
not to say that implementing a room thermostat is not a good
practice, but I can find nothing more than a recommendation
suggesting that one is a good idea.

Although the approved documents propose methods that are not totally set in
stone, you still have to implement a suitable level of compliance to the
original intent. If the approved document says that you need a boiler
interlock,

... but it doesn't - it merely suggests it as good practice.


then you can implement a system without one provided you can
prove with calculation or measurement that your alternative system has the
equivalent level of safety/energy efficiency or whatever.

That's simple enough to do.

If the boiler manufacturers were doing their job properly, it would be
a non issue anyway.


I don't see anyone
proposing to install joists with less that those specified in the approved
documents without further calculation.

Of course not, because there are sound engineering reasons to back up
the practice or the use of calculation.


There are plenty more approved
documents with suggestions that no-one would contemplate breaking, so why
are people thinking that Part L1 is optional.

I didn't say that it was optional. However, some of the methods
described as "best practice" fade into inignificance if a properly
designed modulating boiler is used. The best practice has been
thought out assuming the simplest and least efficient boiler is used.
Even the slothful UK heating industry is gradually moving beyond that
point and the return from using systems appropriate for older
technology heating equipment becomes less and less.

No-one states that the SEDBUK
'D' boiler restriction in Part L is optional, so why the interlock? Yes, the
approved documents are optional. No, you can't just ignore their contents
without implementing their intent in another way.

True, but there is no specific legislated requirement. It states that
very clearly at the start of the Approved Document.


In order to get the building regulations approval, you need to get your
alternative system examined and passed by the building control department.

One can always refer back to the statutory instrument.


In my mind the question is, what constitutes a demand for
heat? TRVs typically reduce the flow to radiators rather
than closing it off completely (...)

I would suggest that mostly closed off TRVs are still counted as a demand
for heat. However, there are situations when there is absolutely no demand
for heat. This can occur during the middle of the day in marginal
conditions, or in the summer. The control systems should be sufficient to
prevent boiler firing during these times.

The boiler is going to fire numerous times during the day anyway at
full power output to recover the hot water cylinder, even in the
summer.....

In comparison to everything else that can be done, preventing a boiler
from firing for a minute or two an hour on a few days of the year is
not a big winner in terms of energy saving.


You can't rely on some spod to do
it for you (who may have limited mobility or understanding of the system),
when it can be done so easily by electronics.

Christian.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

I still don't understand the objection to adding a simple flow switch to the
radiator circuit. It costs very little, makes the system explicitly
compliant with approved document L1, is simple to wire and prevents your
primary circuit being hot 24/7/365. (Unless you sit by the controls and act
as a manual room stat, turning your system on when it gets cold outside).

I didn't say that it was optional.

However, some of the methods described as "best practice" fade
into inignificance if a properly designed modulating boiler is
used.

I read the document as being suggestions of what might be considered
reasonable provision, rather than best practice. You are required to make
reasonable provision. If it considers system 'A' explicitly with feature 'B'
to be reasonable, then I can't see how system 'A' without feature 'B' or an
alternative to it can be considered reasonable.

The system without this feature depends on user intervention to remain
efficient. This appropriate user intervention may not be apparent when you
sell the house to someone else. It relies on the user to understand that the
system uses considerable energy even when the house is not being heated.

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:38:25 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Therefore, for it to be suggested that a room stat is mandatory
is stretching the point from the legislative, economic and the
ecological point of view.

Ah, but there is no requirement in approved doc Part L1 for a room stat,
just a boiler interlock. It suggests in a non-exhaustive list that room
stats and flow switches are appropriate for this use.

Yes, but it's a recommendation, not a requirement.


The addition of a flow switch interlock to an all TRV system would have
absolutely no bad effect (beyond the small installation cost) and much good
effect.

The pump would be running all the time, whether the flow switch was
installed or not. The flow switch just causes the primary water to cool down
if all the TRVs are hard off. If they are passing by at all, then the
modulating boiler will be allowed to fire at the low rate. The flow switch
doesn't force a modern low modulating burner to become cyclical.

The 80W from the motor can be saved by additional electronics to cause
occasional pulsing every ten minutes or so, when the flow switch shows no
flow (I see no requirement in Part L1 to do this, however). It would also be
possible to incorporate the entire lot into a combi style boiler, although I
doubt any manufacturers do.

Mine does exactly that, and modulates the pump.

That was my other main point. Since a modern boiler already has to
have "intelligence" by way of a microprocessor to handle modulation
etc. it is possible to sense all of the operating parameters and to
control all of the devices like pump and motorised valves.


In the case of conventional, full output on/off boilers,
possibly. The focus is demonstrably on the wrong issues.

Only if you assume that people actually turn off the system when it is warm
outside. You can't make this assumption.

Not really. My point was that there are much more substantial savings
that can be made by using modulating and condensing technology than
can be saved by this corner case.


Part L1 also discusses having some low energy lights, but it can't
make the householder use them.





Christian.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:47:18 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

I still don't understand the objection to adding a simple flow switch to the
radiator circuit. It costs very little, makes the system explicitly
compliant with approved document L1, is simple to wire and prevents your
primary circuit being hot 24/7/365. (Unless you sit by the controls and act
as a manual room stat, turning your system on when it gets cold outside).

I didn't say that it was optional.

However, some of the methods described as "best practice" fade
into inignificance if a properly designed modulating boiler is
used.

I read the document as being suggestions of what might be considered
reasonable provision, rather than best practice. You are required to make
reasonable provision. If it considers system 'A' explicitly with feature 'B'
to be reasonable, then I can't see how system 'A' without feature 'B' or an
alternative to it can be considered reasonable.

Easily. If I can demonstrate that I can substantially exceed the
energy saving of adding room stats to old technology boilers by using
a newer technology boiler, then that is more than reasonable.


The system without this feature depends on user intervention to remain
efficient.

That assumes that the boiler is a simple on/off type which is the
assumption of the whole document and those referenced by it.

If the game is changed by using a newer and better technology, then
those assumptions are no longer the case in the overall scheme of
things.


This appropriate user intervention may not be apparent when you
sell the house to someone else. It relies on the user to understand that the
system uses considerable energy even when the house is not being heated.

It's only considerable in the case of an older style simple on/off
boiler.


Christian.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Yes, but it's a recommendation, not a requirement.

But most "building regulations" are recommendations. If you don't follow the
recommendation, you have to prove your alternative is just as good.

Mine does exactly that, and modulates the pump.

In which case, the systems within the boiler provide sufficient interlock
and the boiler is directly compliant with Approved Document L1 without
further external controls.

Not really. My point was that there are much more substantial savings
that can be made by using modulating and condensing technology than
can be saved by this corner case.

However, it becomes much more than a corner case if you can't rely on the
user to turn the system off during warm weather/over summer. Didn't someone
suggest around 700W to keep a typical primary circuit warm? At 16 hours a
day on the timer from May to October, that's around 2000kWh over summer,
completely wasted. Over winter, the savings are much less, as the primary
circuit will need to be warm for at least half the time, but savings are
more likely to occur, as people will probably turn off the heating over
summer, if they can work out the controls.

Part L1 also discusses having some low energy lights, but it can't
make the householder use them.

This part of L1 is totally ridiculous. I only use low energy bulbs, but
refuse to install the ugly and expensive fittings that are mandated. A more
reasonable solution to the low energy bulb fitting problem is to allow
normal pendent fittings, but put a ten pound tax on each incandescent light
bulb, to ensure they retail at considerably more than the cost of a proper
bulb. The bulbs should also come with a health warning on the side, saying
that you are causing irreparable and needless damage to the environment.

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:41:58 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Yes, but it's a recommendation, not a requirement.

But most "building regulations" are recommendations. If you don't follow the
recommendation, you have to prove your alternative is just as good.

Mine does exactly that, and modulates the pump.

In which case, the systems within the boiler provide sufficient interlock
and the boiler is directly compliant with Approved Document L1 without
further external controls.


Right, and all of this is easy for manufacturers to implement at low
cost.


Not really. My point was that there are much more substantial savings
that can be made by using modulating and condensing technology than
can be saved by this corner case.

However, it becomes much more than a corner case if you can't rely on the
user to turn the system off during warm weather/over summer. Didn't someone
suggest around 700W to keep a typical primary circuit warm?

At 80 degrees possibly, but at 40?

At 16 hours a
day on the timer from May to October, that's around 2000kWh over summer,
completely wasted. Over winter, the savings are much less, as the primary
circuit will need to be warm for at least half the time, but savings are
more likely to occur, as people will probably turn off the heating over
summer, if they can work out the controls.

Part L1 also discusses having some low energy lights, but it can't
make the householder use them.

This part of L1 is totally ridiculous. I only use low energy bulbs, but
refuse to install the ugly and expensive fittings that are mandated. A more
reasonable solution to the low energy bulb fitting problem is to allow
normal pendent fittings, but put a ten pound tax on each incandescent light
bulb, to ensure they retail at considerably more than the cost of a proper
bulb. The bulbs should also come with a health warning on the side, saying
that you are causing irreparable and needless damage to the environment.

I don't think that that would fly somehow. Until the appearance and
colour temperature of these can be made to match tungsten lighting or
at least be in the area, and be dimmable people, I don't think that
they will become that popular.

I don't mind having fluorescent lamps in a workshop or even for
outside lights but not for living areas. They are too cold.





Christian.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

That assumes that the boiler is a simple on/off type which is the
assumption of the whole document and those referenced by it.

I don't get that assumption at all. Why do you think that turning off the
boiler when no heating appliance requires heat is specific to an on/off type
boiler? It is simple to do, cheap and effective to turn off the burner when
no heat is required, whether it is a modulating type or not. OK, an old open
flue boiler suffers more from short cycling than a modulating condensing
fanned flue boiler, but the primary circuit losses are the same for both.

Obviously, with analogue TRVs and a modulating boiler you have the advantage
that the system can modulate down and bumb along nicely. However, there are
still savings to be made when the system really doesn't require heat, and by
a very simple, cheap and effective system, too. The cost of a flow switch is
very small, and it is wired up in the same way as a room stat, just
requiring to be inserted into the correct bit of pipe. (i.e. after the
bypass). The pulsing pump system is optional (but could save quite a lot of
cash, if you run an 80W pump 24/7).

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:33:09 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

That assumes that the boiler is a simple on/off type which is the
assumption of the whole document and those referenced by it.

I don't get that assumption at all. Why do you think that turning off the
boiler when no heating appliance requires heat is specific to an on/off type
boiler?

I didn't say that it was specific, only that it is much more
worthwhile.

On a conventional on/off boiler, especially one with large thermal
mass heat exchanger and with natural draught flue, there are numerous
inefficiencies:

- It isn't modulating
- It isn't condensing
- Heat convects through the flue after firing
- There is a lot of hysteresis in the water temperature coming up once
the burner starts.
- It operates at a consistently high temperature.

All of these add up to an overhead each time the boiler is fired up,
so I agree that for that scenario, preventing firing when there really
is no heat demand is desirable because the energy saved may be
significant.


It is simple to do, cheap and effective to turn off the burner when
no heat is required, whether it is a modulating type or not. OK, an old open
flue boiler suffers more from short cycling than a modulating condensing
fanned flue boiler, but the primary circuit losses are the same for both.

They are not because the operating temperatures are different.

During the winter heating season the system will be operating in a
condition when some level of heat is required to compensate the
building heat losses during the timed heating period. There is always
a demand for heat, so there is no reason to interlock firing. The
burner may turn off because its minimum heat output is less than
required, but there remains a demand. At this stage, the flow
temperature may well be in the 40s.

During the spring and autumn the duty cycle of on time gets less and
less as the heat requirement reduces and with a properly designed
modulating boiler you end up with very short burning periods and very
low circuit temperatures except during hot water cycles.



Obviously, with analogue TRVs and a modulating boiler you have the advantage
that the system can modulate down and bumb along nicely.

Exactly.


However, there are
still savings to be made when the system really doesn't require heat, and by
a very simple, cheap and effective system, too.

There are still *some* savings perhaps, but I think that it is a
matter of keeping these things in proportion. There is really no
point in saving 50W of energy if there are other factors that result
in the waste of hundreds of watts or more elsewhere.


The cost of a flow switch is
very small, and it is wired up in the same way as a room stat, just
requiring to be inserted into the correct bit of pipe. (i.e. after the
bypass). The pulsing pump system is optional (but could save quite a lot of
cash, if you run an 80W pump 24/7).


Flow switches are cheap, I agree, but they are not very accurate or
sensitive. If you consider that TRVs around the set point should be
partly open because they should be allowing some amount of water
through how do you determine the cut off point? A bypass around the
switch could be used, but I still wonder about the sensitivity.

I suppose a flow sensor would be better, but then that's a lot more
expensive. In any case, the boiler should be able to deduce the flow
because it knows how much energy is going in and the temperature drop
across the heat exchanger...






Christian.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

I suppose a flow sensor would be better, but then that's a lot
more expensive. In any case, the boiler should be able to deduce
the flow because it knows how much energy is going in and the
temperature drop across the heat exchanger...

Certainly, if the boiler can work it out in software, all the better.

Christian.

Flow switches are cheap, I agree, but they are not very accurate or
sensitive.

Not if my shower pump was anything to go by. The flow switch activated even
for a couple of drips. For the CH application, you would want it at the
sensitive end, to take full advantage of the TRV's analogue nature.

The alternative is to put the flow switch on the bypass. However, I reckon
this wouldn't be as good. Firstly, it makes the control wiring more
complicated. Secondly, a correctly configured bypass would actually operate
slightly when TRVs were mostly closed, in order to reduce noise in the
system. You wouldn't want to cut the burner under these conditions.

Christian.

"Andy Hall" wrote
|"Christian McArdle" wrote:
| ... put a ten pound tax on each incandescent light bulb, to ensure
| they retail at considerably more than the cost of a proper bulb.
| The bulbs should also come with a health warning on the side,
| saying that you are causing irreparable and needless damage to
| the environment.
| I don't think that that would fly somehow. Until the appearance and
| colour temperature of these can be made to match tungsten lighting
| or at least be in the area, and be dimmable people, I don't think
| that they will become that popular.

They'd become much more popular very quickly if incandescents cost a tenner
each!

However, the price of CFLs is kept down because they are in competition with
very cheap GLS. If GLS were taxed to be a tenner each then CFL manufacturers
could creep their prices up and we'd all end up paying more to the
manufacturers or the government either way.

Perhaps we should simply tax energy more; at full 17.5% VAT, and possibly
with a tax on top of that for larger bills to go towards paying for new and
greener power stations (because we're going to need new power stations 'real
soon now'). At the moment large and inefficient users actually pay less per
kWh because they get discounted rates.

Owain

Christian McArdle wrote:

Therefore, for it to be suggested that a room stat is mandatory
is stretching the point from the legislative, economic and the
ecological point of view.


Ah, but there is no requirement in approved doc Part L1 for a room stat,
just a boiler interlock. It suggests in a non-exhaustive list that room
stats and flow switches are appropriate for this use.

The addition of a flow switch interlock to an all TRV system would have
absolutely no bad effect (beyond the small installation cost) and much good
effect.

The pump would be running all the time, whether the flow switch was
installed or not. The flow switch just causes the primary water to cool down
if all the TRVs are hard off. If they are passing by at all, then the
modulating boiler will be allowed to fire at the low rate. The flow switch
doesn't force a modern low modulating burner to become cyclical.

The 80W from the motor can be saved by additional electronics to cause
occasional pulsing every ten minutes or so, when the flow switch shows no
flow (I see no requirement in Part L1 to do this, however). It would also be
possible to incorporate the entire lot into a combi style boiler, although I
doubt any manufacturers do.


In the case of conventional, full output on/off boilers,
possibly. The focus is demonstrably on the wrong issues.


Only if you assume that people actually turn off the system when it is warm
outside. You can't make this assumption.



So, you think people sit there dripping with sweat, with the boiler
churning away, in teh summer? I don't think so.

Even the most stupid user can work out how to s3itch the boiler ON and
OFF. FAR more than they can get the hang of adjusting 14 TRV's and a
main thermostatt.



Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Yes, but it's a recommendation, not a requirement.


But most "building regulations" are recommendations. If you don't follow the
recommendation, you have to prove your alternative is just as good.


Mine does exactly that, and modulates the pump.


In which case, the systems within the boiler provide sufficient interlock
and the boiler is directly compliant with Approved Document L1 without
further external controls.


Not really. My point was that there are much more substantial savings
that can be made by using modulating and condensing technology than
can be saved by this corner case.


However, it becomes much more than a corner case if you can't rely on the
user to turn the system off during warm weather/over summer. Didn't someone
suggest around 700W to keep a typical primary circuit warm?


Ah, but that was averaged over the year. Its MUCH less in summer.

AND asummes long runs of pipework with full flow through them, and not
insulated particularly well.

IF all TRV's are off, then the bypass loop will be the only thing
getting heated. Basically thet is so small as to be almost irrelevant.


Anyway, the biggest savings in fuel are to be had by working from home.

Transport eats about 5 times what domestic heating does.


When I was commuting I was burning something like 70 liters a week in
fuel. Times two for two people. That's 3500 liters a year to be saved.

So, you think people sit there dripping with sweat, with the boiler
churning away, in teh summer? I don't think so.

Maybe not. But many will turn the heating on in October and off in May. For
much of this time, no heating will be required.

Even the most stupid user can work out how to s3itch the boiler ON and
OFF. FAR more than they can get the hang of adjusting 14 TRV's and a
main thermostatt.

Why bother, when a flow switch can turn the boiler on and off for them?
There is no need to have room thermostats fighting with TRVs. A simple flow
switch is fine.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

That assumes that the boiler is a simple on/off type which is the
assumption of the whole document and those referenced by it.


I don't get that assumption at all. Why do you think that turning off the
boiler when no heating appliance requires heat is specific to an on/off type
boiler? It is simple to do, cheap and effective to turn off the burner when
no heat is required, whether it is a modulating type or not. OK, an old open
flue boiler suffers more from short cycling than a modulating condensing
fanned flue boiler, but the primary circuit losses are the same for both.

Obviously, with analogue TRVs and a modulating boiler you have the advantage
that the system can modulate down and bumb along nicely. However, there are
still savings to be made when the system really doesn't require heat, and by
a very simple, cheap and effective system, too. The cost of a flow switch is
very small, and it is wired up in the same way as a room stat, just
requiring to be inserted into the correct bit of pipe. (i.e. after the
bypass). The pulsing pump system is optional (but could save quite a lot of
cash, if you run an 80W pump 24/7).



Ok, given that I have very few TRV's, and instead a series of fan
assisted convectors, how do you think I should control THAT lot :-)

Wire OR all the room stats together to control the pump? And then what
about the rads with TRV's on?

Blimey, the installation cost in both cash and energy would exceeed
savings over the lifetime of the system...


Christian.

IF all TRV's are off, then the bypass loop will be the only thing
getting heated. Basically thet is so small as to be almost irrelevant.

That depends on what your bypass is. A tiny bypass internal to the boiler is
likely to be small. However, a permanent bypass through a bathroom radiator
is likely to be much larger.

I'm still not sure why you are so resistant to having a ten quid flow switch
in the system. Over the lifetime of the system, it will definitely save many
times that in gas and isn't much of a risk.

Christian.

Ok, given that I have very few TRV's, and instead a series of fan
assisted convectors, how do you think I should control THAT lot :-)

I'd have thought that fan convectors would have simplified matters.

Wire OR all the room stats together to control the pump? And then what
about the rads with TRV's on?

If I had several fan convectors and several TRVs and didn't want a room stat
in the radiator part of the house, I would:

1. Have a programmable room stat for each fan convector (basically because
you can, and it gives separate timing for rooms likely to be used
differently, such as kitchens and conservatories, where such heaters are
typically installed).

2. Put all the convectors on a separate convector zone (or unzoned, if the
convector has an internal valve to prevent water circulation when off).

3. Put all the TRV radiators on the unzoned circuit, with flow switch. Any
bypass is before the radiator circuit

4. Run boiler when either HWC or convector zone valve (internal or external)
opens, or when flow switch activates.

5. Run pump either continuously, or when any zone valve or flow switch opens
and pulsed every ten minutes when not.

Alternatively, if the convectors have internal valves, an alternative is to
just treat them like a TRV radiator, in that they would cut the flow when
off and can activate the boiler using the flow switch, just like the
radiator. This would be very simple to wire, as the signalling to the
central heating from the convector is simply through the water pipework. No
electrical connection is needed.

Christian.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So, you think people sit there dripping with sweat, with the boiler
churning away, in teh summer? I don't think so.

With an overall stat, it won't come on...

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:11:37 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
|"Christian McArdle" wrote:
| ... put a ten pound tax on each incandescent light bulb, to ensure
| they retail at considerably more than the cost of a proper bulb.
| The bulbs should also come with a health warning on the side,
| saying that you are causing irreparable and needless damage to
| the environment.
| I don't think that that would fly somehow. Until the appearance and
| colour temperature of these can be made to match tungsten lighting
| or at least be in the area, and be dimmable people, I don't think
| that they will become that popular.

They'd become much more popular very quickly if incandescents cost a tenner
each!

However, the price of CFLs is kept down because they are in competition with
very cheap GLS. If GLS were taxed to be a tenner each then CFL manufacturers
could creep their prices up and we'd all end up paying more to the
manufacturers or the government either way.

Perhaps we should simply tax energy more; at full 17.5% VAT, and possibly
with a tax on top of that for larger bills to go towards paying for new and
greener power stations (because we're going to need new power stations 'real
soon now'). At the moment large and inefficient users actually pay less per
kWh because they get discounted rates.


It's counterintuitive of course. Utilities are already charged in
this way in California.

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become a
black market in them......

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.



Owain



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France, except, of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a 100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:59 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France, except, of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

That depends on the perceived need.

For example, in the past, tulip bulbs were imported at outrageous
black market and legitimate prices, more recently ladies hosiery and
nowadays it's tobacco and alcohol.

One doesn't *need* any of these but if the perception is there that
these are luxury items then people will buy.



Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a 100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.

Do you have those pneumatic plunger time delay light switches? ;-)



Christian.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Do you have those pneumatic plunger time delay light switches? ;-)

I never really understood those. You can get a DIN rail unit to do accurate
hall light timing that can be connected up to any number of 99p non-latching
switches. Instead, people install those pneumatic monstrosities (average
service life: 2 months) at about 15-20 quid a piece.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

Ok, given that I have very few TRV's, and instead a series of fan
assisted convectors, how do you think I should control THAT lot :-)


I'd have thought that fan convectors would have simplified matters.


Wire OR all the room stats together to control the pump? And then what
about the rads with TRV's on?


If I had several fan convectors and several TRVs and didn't want a room stat
in the radiator part of the house, I would:

1. Have a programmable room stat for each fan convector (basically because
you can, and it gives separate timing for rooms likely to be used
differently, such as kitchens and conservatories, where such heaters are
typically installed).


No, they re installed throughout. They all have stats, but not on teh
water. On the fans :-)



2. Put all the convectors on a separate convector zone (or unzoned, if the
convector has an internal valve to prevent water circulation when off).


They are on a seprate zone, altho it has some TRV rads as well.



3. Put all the TRV radiators on the unzoned circuit, with flow switch. Any
bypass is before the radiator circuit


Flow switch won't work. They don't cut the flow, just the fans :-)



4. Run boiler when either HWC or convector zone valve (internal or external)
opens, or when flow switch activates.


Thats what happens now. HWC or that zone comngh in starts boiler - but
its purely on timoimg for convector/TRV zone...



5. Run pump either continuously, or when any zone valve or flow switch opens
and pulsed every ten minutes when not.


Pump is run continously.
But that is what you said was a nono?

Right now, the water curculates all teh time, and teh boiler jts cuts in
when its temp drops.



Alternatively, if the convectors have internal valves, an alternative is to
just treat them like a TRV radiator, in that they would cut the flow when
off and can activate the boiler using the flow switch, just like the
radiator. This would be very simple to wire, as the signalling to the
central heating from the convector is simply through the water pipework. No
electrical connection is needed.


Well ... they don't have internal valves..



Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:


Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a 100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.


Well thats easy then. We wil eiher install 5 of them in paralllel, or
simply buy some foreign ones in.



Christian.

Well thats easy then. We wil eiher install 5 of them in paralllel,
or simply buy some foreign ones in.

Er, five in parallel would make them flash more. That would draw 500W, so
the fitting would flash on for 1 second and off for 19.

It is easily bypassed, as in you could remove the fitting, or use side
lamps. OTOH, if you had a particularly nasty BCO, such a fitting could prove
useful. One trick, I suppose, if you are a builder, is to have your horrible
fluorescent fittings and just remove them after the inspection until you get
to the next house. Not that the BCO will care.

Christian.

P.S. I'm still not serious about this.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:36:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So, you think people sit there dripping with sweat, with the boiler
churning away, in teh summer? I don't think so.

You can't make the assumption in relation to the approved document.
And yes, I do expect people to have the heating on during the summer,
if they get too hot they open the window(s)...

Even the most stupid user can work out how to s3itch the boiler ON
and OFF.

My opinion of the great unwashed isn't that high.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Flow switch won't work. They don't cut the flow, just the fans :-)

Obviously, flow switch will only work directly on the convectors if they
have internal valves.

4. Run boiler when either HWC or convector zone valve (internal or
external)
opens, or when flow switch activates.

Thats what happens now. HWC or that zone comngh in starts boiler - but
its purely on timoimg for convector/TRV zone...

You could increase efficiency by having boiler connected to a TRV zone flow
switch or'ed with the convectors when any heater is active (either from the
thermostats via a relay, or any output contacts provided by the heater).

Pump is run continously.
But that is what you said was a nono?

I can't find anything that says the pump needs an interlock, only the
boiler. It is sensible to stop the pump, if possible, though. I'm not sure
I'd want mine on all the time. Electricity is four times the cost of gas, as
well. However, stopping the pump would require some electronics, or it won't
be able to start again. The electronics just consist of a device to pulse
for two seconds every ten minutes. Then the pump will run for 2 seconds
every 10 minutes OR whenever the boiler pump output is active.

Christian.

Then the pump will run for 2 seconds every 10 minutes OR
whenever the boiler pump output is active.

I should, perhaps, reiterate that the pulsing will only affect the radiator
circuit, in that it will look to see if TRVs have opened during the pulse.
In the event of the fan convector (or HWC) demanding heat, the boiler and
pump will start immediately. The TRVs (and hence boiler) will modulate down
in normal action, so only when the demand for heat has dropped very
considerably, will the flow switch close and revert to the pulsing pump
action. In this event, large amounts of heat are unlikely to be rapidly
required, and the 10 minute period is unlikely to be problematic.

Christian.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:59 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France, except, of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a 100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.


In most short hold rental flats the replacement of light bulbs would
normally be the responsibility of the tenant. If the tenant left with the
bulbs their cost would coem from the deposit.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:53:52 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

Do you have those pneumatic plunger time delay light switches? ;-)

I never really understood those. You can get a DIN rail unit to do accurate
hall light timing that can be connected up to any number of 99p non-latching
switches. Instead, people install those pneumatic monstrosities (average
service life: 2 months) at about 15-20 quid a piece.

It's tradition. Also I suspect that it would take quite a bit of
rearraging the wiring to convert the existing switching arrangements to
using a timer.

1) There'll be 3+E between the switches but not between the MCB and the
light fittings and on to the first switch.
2) Many older installations will probably not have a din rail unit but
rather still use semi enclosed rewireables.
3) Commercially: The maintenance electrician will be called in to
fix/replace a single duff air delay switch. He doesn't have the authority
to spend the money to fix things better for the longer tmer.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:36:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


So, you think people sit there dripping with sweat, with the boiler
churning away, in teh summer? I don't think so.


You can't make the assumption in relation to the approved document.
And yes, I do expect people to have the heating on during the summer,
if they get too hot they open the window(s)...


Even the most stupid user can work out how to s3itch the boiler ON
and OFF.


My opinion of the great unwashed isn't that high.


Thank god the people who installed my boiler didn't expect it to be on
all the time, as this thread seems to be saying is a Good Thing.

My bathroom would be roasting from the heat given off by the boiler
being 'up to temp' constantly, from what I am gathering here. And
that'd be with the rad off completely.

As it is, the bathroom rad is on only a fraction (not even half a turn!)
solely to provide very low level heat to dry off my towel. The heating
of the room is provided by the boiler itself, and if that ran constantly
in winter, it'd be too hot, let alone if it was doing that in
spring/summer!!

I *could* turn the heating off in summer, but I don't. The reason why?
I have a programmable room stat. No TRV's, just the stat. In the
summer the stat never calls for heat. Because it's set on the low side,
I tend to notch it up a few degrees in winter per heating period, if I'm
in, then I know it'll reset to a lower temp once I'm not there. This
means it never fires in summer unless it's very unseasonable weather.

I *could* turn the boiler off in summer, but it supplies my HW. And it
uses the heating circuit to cool down after doing so, which gives the
system a gently waft through to stop the "I've just turned my heating on
and it's not working" problem.

I see no point in keeping a boiler 'up to temp' all year round, it's
lunacy. Unless it's exceptionally well insulated, it'll always leak
heat into the surroundings - and there will always be some degree of
heat travel away from the boiler in the metal pipework to the near
surroundings too.

Just doesn't make sense on either a personal comfort level, or on an
economical level either.

Velvet

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:03:01 GMT, Velvet wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:


Thank god the people who installed my boiler didn't expect it to be on
all the time, as this thread seems to be saying is a Good Thing.

My bathroom would be roasting from the heat given off by the boiler
being 'up to temp' constantly, from what I am gathering here. And
that'd be with the rad off completely.

As it is, the bathroom rad is on only a fraction (not even half a turn!)
solely to provide very low level heat to dry off my towel. The heating
of the room is provided by the boiler itself, and if that ran constantly
in winter, it'd be too hot, let alone if it was doing that in
spring/summer!!

I *could* turn the heating off in summer, but I don't. The reason why?
I have a programmable room stat. No TRV's, just the stat. In the
summer the stat never calls for heat. Because it's set on the low side,
I tend to notch it up a few degrees in winter per heating period, if I'm
in, then I know it'll reset to a lower temp once I'm not there. This
means it never fires in summer unless it's very unseasonable weather.

I *could* turn the boiler off in summer, but it supplies my HW. And it
uses the heating circuit to cool down after doing so, which gives the
system a gently waft through to stop the "I've just turned my heating on
and it's not working" problem.

I see no point in keeping a boiler 'up to temp' all year round, it's
lunacy. Unless it's exceptionally well insulated, it'll always leak
heat into the surroundings - and there will always be some degree of
heat travel away from the boiler in the metal pipework to the near
surroundings too.

Just doesn't make sense on either a personal comfort level, or on an
economical level either.

Velvet

I don't think you understood the point being made or the technology
involved

.. Only older technology boilers heat up to the 80 or so degree
temperatures during periods of low heat demand.

If your boiler is generating that much heat from the case, then it is
presumably not a modulating or a condensing type.

If it were, then it would be modulating down to 40 degrees or so as
the heat requirement becomes less. Under those conditions, very
little energy is used warming the primary circuit water and typically
the boiler, sensing the low rate of heat requirement won't fire
anyway.

This has nothing to do with the case being insulated or even the
pipework. The amount of heat generated is extremely low in any case.

Were you to have used a condensing boiler with even the fairly basic
level of built in control, you would be enjoying gas bills
approximately 25% lower and would not be experiencing the
inappropriate heat from the appliance itself.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:11:37 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
|"Christian McArdle" wrote:
| ... put a ten pound tax on each incandescent light bulb, to ensure
| they retail at considerably more than the cost of a proper bulb.
| The bulbs should also come with a health warning on the side,
| saying that you are causing irreparable and needless damage to
| the environment.
| I don't think that that would fly somehow. Until the appearance and
| colour temperature of these can be made to match tungsten lighting
| or at least be in the area, and be dimmable people, I don't think
| that they will become that popular.

They'd become much more popular very quickly if incandescents cost a
tenner
each!

However, the price of CFLs is kept down because they are in competition
with
very cheap GLS. If GLS were taxed to be a tenner each then CFL
manufacturers
could creep their prices up and we'd all end up paying more to the
manufacturers or the government either way.

Perhaps we should simply tax energy more; at full 17.5% VAT, and possibly
with a tax on top of that for larger bills to go towards paying for new
and
greener power stations (because we're going to need new power stations
'real
soon now'). At the moment large and inefficient users actually pay less
per
kWh because they get discounted rates.

Good points Owain.

It's counterintuitive of course. Utilities are already charged in
this way in California.

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become a
black market in them......

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

A year or so back, California had a power shortage. They blamed all sorts
for it. Very few hit the real point. They were telling people not to use
their washing machines, dishwashers and dryers, as these would create
brownouts and then blackout. US appliances are hopelessly inefficient. If
the US government committed to an EU like AAA rating, then none of this
would have happened. CRT usage is dropping, collective heavy power usage,
due to the introduction of LCDs, but the US government still is not
legislating to reduce power.

Legislating is the only way. Do you think the building industry would have
voluntarily built to the insulation levels we are to see in 2005? Not in a
million years!!!! In 1990 when insulation levels rose by a miniscule
amount, the British Building Industry said insulation was "cosmetic". Apart
from the windows, nothing else of insulation you see.

In the UK all appliances sold should be at least AAA and insulation levels
to Scandinavian levels - BY LAW.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:03:01 GMT, Velvet wrote:


Dave Liquorice wrote:


Thank god the people who installed my boiler didn't expect it to be on
all the time, as this thread seems to be saying is a Good Thing.

My bathroom would be roasting from the heat given off by the boiler
being 'up to temp' constantly, from what I am gathering here. And
that'd be with the rad off completely.

As it is, the bathroom rad is on only a fraction (not even half a turn!)
solely to provide very low level heat to dry off my towel. The heating
of the room is provided by the boiler itself, and if that ran constantly
in winter, it'd be too hot, let alone if it was doing that in
spring/summer!!

I *could* turn the heating off in summer, but I don't. The reason why?
I have a programmable room stat. No TRV's, just the stat. In the
summer the stat never calls for heat. Because it's set on the low side,
I tend to notch it up a few degrees in winter per heating period, if I'm
in, then I know it'll reset to a lower temp once I'm not there. This
means it never fires in summer unless it's very unseasonable weather.

I *could* turn the boiler off in summer, but it supplies my HW. And it
uses the heating circuit to cool down after doing so, which gives the
system a gently waft through to stop the "I've just turned my heating on
and it's not working" problem.

I see no point in keeping a boiler 'up to temp' all year round, it's
lunacy. Unless it's exceptionally well insulated, it'll always leak
heat into the surroundings - and there will always be some degree of
heat travel away from the boiler in the metal pipework to the near
surroundings too.

Just doesn't make sense on either a personal comfort level, or on an
economical level either.

Velvet


I don't think you understood the point being made or the technology
involved

. Only older technology boilers heat up to the 80 or so degree
temperatures during periods of low heat demand.

If your boiler is generating that much heat from the case, then it is
presumably not a modulating or a condensing type.

If it were, then it would be modulating down to 40 degrees or so as
the heat requirement becomes less. Under those conditions, very
little energy is used warming the primary circuit water and typically
the boiler, sensing the low rate of heat requirement won't fire
anyway.

This has nothing to do with the case being insulated or even the
pipework. The amount of heat generated is extremely low in any case.

Were you to have used a condensing boiler with even the fairly basic
level of built in control, you would be enjoying gas bills
approximately 25% lower and would not be experiencing the
inappropriate heat from the appliance itself.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Quite possible I've not picked up on the types of boiler being talked
about here. Mine's a non-modulating (though the one before it was
indeed a modulating one). Don't have the foggiest if it's a condensing
one - I doubt it (since they seem to be more expensive?).

FWIW, the old boiler (the modulating one) managed to heat the bathroom
just as well. It's hard to say if this is actually from the case, or
the fact that I have pipework running from the boiler down to the floor
that 'you could hang fairy lights on, love' - it's not boxed in so
there's a fair bit of heat radiating off those if the heating's on.

This thing about the boiler constantly staying warm/up to temp - are we
talking about something that would apply to a system with a HW tank? I
don't have one of those, and thinking about it I can see that perhaps it
might make sense if there's a HW tank in the equation - though when
thinking about that in the context of my other half's house, when the HW
tank is warm (presumably it would be kept warm permanently by the
boiler?) the airing cupboard *and* the rooms surrounding it are warm
too, courtesy of unlagged pipes running under the floor from teh boiler
to the airing cupboard.

I've been paying attention to this thread but it's rambled a lot and I
really don't seem to have managed to gather the exact details of it all.
I'd be grateful for anyone that could post a quick summary of the
boiler and system layout this idea would and wouldn't be suitable for
cos at some point I *will* own my own place, and chances are I *will*
replace the boiler/CH/HW system in it :-)

Velvet

, when the HW tank is warm (presumably it would be kept warm permanently
by the boiler?)

Not in a correctly specced design. Part L1 suggests a suitable arrangement
to heat a HWC is to have a separate pumped zone (the pump can be shared with
other zones, if convenient) and a reasonably rapid recovery coil with
cylinder thermostat. This means it can heat the entire tank in around twenty
minutes. Provided suitable hysteresis and good insulation, the boiler can be
kept from firing for quite some time before the temperature drops. Keeping
the primary circuit from being hot most of the time reduces primary circuit
losses, and promotes having a short high burn from the boiler, which is
efficient.

Christian.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:59 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France, except,
of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is
cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only
allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a
100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted
to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.


In most short hold rental flats the replacement of light bulbs would
normally be the responsibility of the tenant. If the tenant left with the
bulbs their cost would coem from the deposit.

Most don't pay the last month or twos rent and leave no deposit to be paid
back, and generally owing rent.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:07:21 +0000, IMM wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:59 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France, except,
of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is
cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only
allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a
100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and wanted
to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.


In most short hold rental flats the replacement of light bulbs would
normally be the responsibility of the tenant. If the tenant left with the
bulbs their cost would coem from the deposit.

Most don't pay the last month or twos rent and leave no deposit to be paid
back, and generally owing rent.


This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially where
accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay the
last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:07:21 +0000, IMM wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:53:59 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

Of course if light bulbs were heavily taxed, there would become
a black market in them......

Tax them at source. Then people can ship in loads from France,
except,
of
course, they are for 220V and will blow twice as often.

On the other hand, would people bother, particularly as the hassle of
importing them illegally just isn't worth it, as the alternative is
cheaper
overall than what they're used to.

Perhaps the government would then introduce colour temperature
detector vans.

Another technological solution (easily bypassed, of course) to the
silly
fittings rule in Part L1, is to introduce a pendent fitting that only
allows
25W to be drawn. Any more and it should flash the light. i.e. stick a
100W
light bulb in and it has 1 second on and 3 seconds off. BTW, I'm not
actually serious here, except maybe if I renting out a house and
wanted
to
stop the tenant flogging the bulbs.


In most short hold rental flats the replacement of light bulbs would
normally be the responsibility of the tenant. If the tenant left with
the
bulbs their cost would coem from the deposit.

Most don't pay the last month or twos rent and leave no deposit to be
paid
back, and generally owing rent.


This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially where
accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay the
last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

I know many people who rent out flats in London, and 50% of the time they
have problems in payment. Most of the problems are with foreign tenants
rather than with British, but most of the punters are foreign so they have
little choice but to take them.

I know two who were so ****ed off with the hassles involved they just sold
up.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003