"Tim" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:25:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:50:18 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




The pressure of the water gives the power sensation against the skin.
You
can get a very good shower at 7 to 8 litres/minute if the pressure is
high.
7 - 8 litres/min and low pressure and you feel as it you have to run
around
to get wet.


That's horrible. It's like bombarding yourself with one of those
needle jet things.

A very unpleasnt experience.

I'd have to second that. I worked in a new building once that had staff
showers on the ground floor. They managed somehow to deliver mentally high
pressure and flow rates to the said showers building was only two storey
so I assume it was mains or pumped and not gravity fed.

On the good side, you could get clean in about 30 seconds (pre-soap, blast
off). The downside was - aim the shower head the wrong way and you nearly
got you n*ts blown off. Bl**dy hurt too.

Makes my eyes water just thinking about it...

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some mains
water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:20:13 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you are going for a heat bank. Preferable is an "integrated",
"direct"
one. Direct is that there is no coil between boiler and cylinder and
integrated means the CH is run from the cylinder too.

Range do the Flowmax and DPS do the GVX (?), which I believe is
cheaper
than
the Pandora. The Flowmax is well priced.

http://www.range-cylinders.co.uk


These are a bad idea with a
condensing boiler for CH use because the
boiler does not modulate down to its more efficient low burn and low
temperature ranges.

If you look at the behaviour of a condensing
boiler with a CH system in spring and autumn
it comes on at low level and works at low and
very efficient temperatures

Depends on the boiler. Most condensing boiler "modulate" on marinating a
setpoint flow temp.

I didn't know that you could prepare food on them as well

Of couse you can.

Only the up market boilers modulate on load
compensation.

I was really talking about load
determination from temperature drop
and firing rate.


The Gledhill Systemate heat bank has two pumps and has the boiler heating
the rads direct. This would be good with a load compensating condensing
boiler.

If you put a heat bank in the middle to run radiators it has the
effect of causing the boiler to burn at high output periodically to
replenish the heatbank. It will never run at low output and
therefore not in its most efficient range.

If the CH is on it would be lowering the water temp at the bottom of the
store. This returns to the boiler at a low efficient temperature. Many
stores have the cycl stat low on the cylinder and set low, as they
calulate
that stratification would keep the top at approx 75-80C and the bottom
very
much lower.

An indirect heatbank just for the DHW makes a lot of sense, because it
is recharged at high boiler output for a short time.

A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is removed.

Exactly.

The return temp from the store would be low in usage promoting condensing
efficiency.


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:20:13 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you are going for a heat bank. Preferable is an "integrated",
"direct"
one. Direct is that there is no coil between boiler and cylinder and
integrated means the CH is run from the cylinder too.

Range do the Flowmax and DPS do the GVX (?), which I believe is
cheaper
than
the Pandora. The Flowmax is well priced.

http://www.range-cylinders.co.uk


These are a bad idea with a
condensing boiler for CH use because the
boiler does not modulate down to its more efficient low burn and low
temperature ranges.

If you look at the behaviour of a condensing
boiler with a CH system in spring and autumn
it comes on at low level and works at low and
very efficient temperatures

Depends on the boiler. Most condensing boiler "modulate" on marinating a
setpoint flow temp.

I didn't know that you could prepare food on them as well

Only the up market boilers modulate on load
compensation.

I was really talking about load determination from temperature drop
and firing rate.


The Gledhill Systemate heat bank has two pumps and has the boiler heating
the rads direct. This would be good with a load compensating condensing
boiler.

If you put a heat bank in the middle to run radiators it has the
effect of causing the boiler to burn at high output periodically to
replenish the heatbank. It will never run at low output and
therefore not in its most efficient range.

If the CH is on it would be lowering the water temp at the bottom of the
store. This returns to the boiler at a low efficient temperature. Many
stores have the cycl stat low on the cylinder and set low, as they
calulate
that stratification would keep the top at approx 75-80C and the bottom
very
much lower.

An indirect heatbank just for the DHW makes a lot of sense, because it
is recharged at high boiler output for a short time.

A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

The return temp from the store would be low in usage promoting condensing
efficiency.


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:21:16 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:18:30 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Not to mention pipes, fittings and valves and pipe insulation, etc.
All
adds up. I would guess £600 more bottom line.

You need to shop around more. A few elbows and Ts aren't going to cost
that.
Nor is there any guarantee that more pipework is needed than the
combi.
Indeed, the cylinder is often more conveniently placed to break into
the
DHW
system than the boiler, so requires fewer additional runs.

Christian.


In fact it's far more likely to be able to drop in in place of the
existing cylinder if one wanted to do that, or easily in the loft
position, simply because the boiler is typically in the kitchen, the
cylinder on the first floor and tank (space) in the loft.

Who wants a boiler in the kitchen? Why not have the dishwasher in the
bathroom as well.

It was an observation as to where they typically are.

Of course it's possible to move the boiler elsewhere, but this is
additional pipework and cost.

And more space and less noise.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:20:13 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you are going for a heat bank. Preferable is an "integrated",
"direct"
one. Direct is that there is no coil between boiler and cylinder
and
integrated means the CH is run from the cylinder too.

Range do the Flowmax and DPS do the GVX (?), which I believe is
cheaper
than
the Pandora. The Flowmax is well priced.

http://www.range-cylinders.co.uk


These are a bad idea with a
condensing boiler for CH use because the
boiler does not modulate down to its more efficient low burn and low
temperature ranges.

If you look at the behaviour of a condensing
boiler with a CH system in spring and autumn
it comes on at low level and works at low and
very efficient temperatures

Depends on the boiler. Most condensing boiler "modulate" on marinating
a
setpoint flow temp.

I didn't know that you could prepare food on them as well

Only the up market boilers modulate on load
compensation.

I was really talking about load determination from temperature drop
and firing rate.


The Gledhill Systemate heat bank has two pumps and has the boiler
heating
the rads direct. This would be good with a load compensating
condensing
boiler.

If you put a heat bank in the middle to run radiators it has the
effect of causing the boiler to burn at high output periodically to
replenish the heatbank. It will never run at low output and
therefore not in its most efficient range.

If the CH is on it would be lowering the water temp at the bottom of
the
store. This returns to the boiler at a low efficient temperature. Many
stores have the cycl stat low on the cylinder and set low, as they
calulate
that stratification would keep the top at approx 75-80C and the bottom
very
much lower.

An indirect heatbank just for the DHW makes a lot of sense, because
it
is recharged at high boiler output for a short time.

A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to raise and
lower the CH section of the store.

The return temp from the store would be low in usage promoting
condensing
efficiency.


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:26:11 +0100, "Tim" wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:25:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:50:18 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




The pressure of the water gives the power sensation against the skin. You
can get a very good shower at 7 to 8 litres/minute if the pressure is high.
7 - 8 litres/min and low pressure and you feel as it you have to run around
to get wet.


That's horrible. It's like bombarding yourself with one of those
needle jet things.

A very unpleasnt experience.

I'd have to second that. I worked in a new building once that had staff
showers on the ground floor. They managed somehow to deliver mentally high
pressure and flow rates to the said showers building was only two storey
so I assume it was mains or pumped and not gravity fed.

On the good side, you could get clean in about 30 seconds (pre-soap, blast
off). The downside was - aim the shower head the wrong way and you nearly
got you n*ts blown off. Bl**dy hurt too.

Makes my eyes water just thinking about it...

Timbo


An enematic experience?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:37:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:25:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


That's horrible. It's like bombarding yourself with one of those
needle jet things.

A very unpleasnt experience.

I'd have to second that. I worked in a new building once that had staff
showers on the ground floor. They managed somehow to deliver mentally high
pressure and flow rates to the said showers building was only two storey
so I assume it was mains or pumped and not gravity fed.

On the good side, you could get clean in about 30 seconds (pre-soap, blast
off). The downside was - aim the shower head the wrong way and you nearly
got you n*ts blown off. Bl**dy hurt too.

Makes my eyes water just thinking about it...

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Speak for yourself, buster.


Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some mains
water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to raise and
lower the CH section of the store.


No, no, no. The store should be for DHW only and the CH operated
totally separately and directly from the boiler.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:37:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:25:30 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


That's horrible. It's like bombarding yourself with one of those
needle jet things.

A very unpleasnt experience.

I'd have to second that. I worked in a new building once that had staff
showers on the ground floor. They managed somehow to deliver mentally
high
pressure and flow rates to the said showers building was only two
storey
so I assume it was mains or pumped and not gravity fed.

On the good side, you could get clean in about 30 seconds (pre-soap,
blast
off). The downside was - aim the shower head the wrong way and you
nearly
got you n*ts blown off. Bl**dy hurt too.

Makes my eyes water just thinking about it...

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Speak for yourself, buster.

Got none. I have wonderful hair.

Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some mains
water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to raise
and
lower the CH section of the store.

No, no, no.

Wrong 0/10. Failed again.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:12:10 +0100, IMM wrote:

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Speak for yourself, buster.

Got none. I have wonderful hair.

Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some
mains water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.




Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each other
Or is this just friendly banter?

Yours curiously

Timbo

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:00:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On the good side, you could get clean in about 30 seconds (pre-soap, blast
off). The downside was - aim the shower head the wrong way and you nearly
got you n*ts blown off. Bl**dy hurt too.

Makes my eyes water just thinking about it...

Timbo


An enematic experience?


Safe to say, if you tried with *that* shower, you'd clean your teeth
at the same time :-

Timbo

What I want is huge volumes of water at low pressure - we have one of
those "soup plate" shower heads about a foot across.

Yup.

Ah those. I can see that they might be adequetely serviced by a gravity
system, as they do rely on lots of water at low pressure. However, a
standard shower head uses a different system. The multifunction heads always
seem to have a "soft" option, recommended for children (and presumably those
that don't like pressure), that seems to introduce an air break for low
pressure operation, but I find it annoying and never use that mode.

The main problems with high pressure being too much are when you combine
high flow with high pressure, which can get painful. I prefer a middle range
on both. 1-1.5 bar with around 10 lpm seems about right for me. I find less
than 1 bar doesn't have the any pressure washing effect at all.

Christian.

In article ,
Christian McArdle wrote:
I find less
than 1 bar doesn't have the any pressure washing effect at all.

If 1 bar is indeed about 30 ft, I doubt there are many header tank systems
that get near this for a first floor bathroom.

Mine is nearer half that from the top of the tank to the shower head, but
works just fine on my Aqualisa.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim wrote:
Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each
other Or is this just friendly banter?

I'm constantly amazed at Andy's patience correcting the continual mistakes
and half information from IMM.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

IMM wrote:

Depends on the boiler. Most condensing boiler "modulate" on marinating a
setpoint flow temp.

"Adam" had a good run and so, now, has "IMM". You should change your
name to Mr. Malaprop next. Oh, and try looking up the meaning of
"mentalist" some time.

Only the up market boilers modulate on load compensation.

Serious question: please explain in a concise but rigorous manner
/exactly/ what "load compensation" means in this context.

--
Andy

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:22:16 +0100, "Tim" wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:12:10 +0100, IMM wrote:

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Speak for yourself, buster.

Got none. I have wonderful hair.

Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some
mains water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.




Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each other
Or is this just friendly banter?

Yours curiously

Timbo

I'm very friendly.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:13:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to raise
and
lower the CH section of the store.

No, no, no.

Wrong 0/10. Failed again.


The discussion was already covered in ample detail.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

If 1 bar is indeed about 30 ft, I doubt there are many header tank systems
that get near this for a first floor bathroom.

Indeed. I can't think that more than 1% of gravity based systems would
satisfy me for a shower, although oddly, my mother's downstairs shower would
have been close had I installed it before the mains pressure cylinder went
in (thin 4 storey Victorian house). That would have had about 9m head, which
would probably have sufficed. Either a pump or mains pressure is required
normally.

Christian.

"Tim" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:12:10 +0100, IMM wrote:

Gets all the dandruff out of your scalp.

Speak for yourself, buster.

Got none. I have wonderful hair.

Most people are happy with 1 to 1.5 bar. Approaching 10 bar (some
mains water pressure is over 9 bar) and it gets uncomfortable.




Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each other
Or is this just friendly banter?

I love everyone.

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Depends on the boiler. Most condensing boiler "modulate" on marinating
a
setpoint flow temp.

snip a mentalist

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:34:26 +0100, IMM wrote:

I love everyone.

Excellent! If this were the 60s we could break out the
spliffs now :-

Pity I missed it really...

Timbo

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:13:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to
raise
and
lower the CH section of the store.

No, no, no.

Wrong 0/10. Failed again.

The discussion was already covered in ample detail.

Andy, a failure is a failure.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:44:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:13:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to
raise
and
lower the CH section of the store.

No, no, no.

Wrong 0/10. Failed again.

The discussion was already covered in ample detail.

Andy, a failure is a failure.

I guess that you'd know more about that than me.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 22 Sep 2004 12:21:53 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Much of the satisfaction of a shower is the velocity of the water from
the shower head, which can't possibly have enough energy without
considerable pressure being available.

I couldn't disagree more. I *hate* having a hole drilled in the top of
my head by a shower that thinks it's a pressure washer.

Same here. As with everything, tastes vary. Which is why the IMM one
answer to everything is so stupid.

What I want is huge volumes of water at low pressure - we have one of
those "soup plate" shower heads about a foot across.

Yup.

Your point still stands, though. You still have to flow large amounts of
water.

Which can be done with little pressure - it's down to the pipe size and
runs. Within reason, of course.

The best shower I ever had was supplied by a "Tanganyka Boiler" in the middle
of the Masai Mara. A 40 gallon oil drum on it's side is filled with water,
the shower connected to one port and a vertical pipe connected to the other,
to provide the head. Light a large bonfire under the oil drum, et voila, large
quantities of hot water at low pressure.


.... and the boiler fits on its side. Space saving is important in the
bush. A win-win situation..... :-)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:44:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:13:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


A DHW only heat bank is best as one layer of heat interchange
is
removed.

Exactly.

A "direct" one.

And one feed the CH from it as well using a weather compensator to
raise
and
lower the CH section of the store.

No, no, no.

Wrong 0/10. Failed again.

The discussion was already covered in ample detail.

Andy, a failure is a failure.

I guess that you'd know more about that than me.....

Of course, I am marking.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:35:26 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The discussion was already covered in ample detail.

Andy, a failure is a failure.

I guess that you'd know more about that than me.....

Of course, I am marking.

Time?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:


Perhaps your main trouble was restriction in the flow caused by the
pipework?

You don't live in a bungerlow, do you?

mike

"IMM" wrote in :


Unless you raise it 30 feet.

I already did that with no noticeable
difference, but the Grunfos booster
I've just fitted is not audible, and works a treat

What model? What price?

UPA 15/90

I'm not going to embarass myself by telling you what I paid - it was rather
less than list, but I'm sure rather more than everyone else here could have
got it at!

mike

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:14:33 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:44:33 GMT, "VisionSet"
wrote:


"VisionSet" wrote in message
...
I'm about to start the last major upheaval in my house.
Replaceing the ancient back-boiler.
...

I'll add a little more detail maybe you two can agree on something ;-)

House is 3-bed semi. 1 bathroom/toilet (ie one room). 6 rads + 1 teeny
one.

So the upshot is that nowadays combis are worth considering?
I'm think that when I had a look 6 years back that wasn't so much the case.

I am going to do all the work myself though get a corgi chap in for final
gas hook up to maintain boiler guarantee - that is the case is it not?

mains flow is 19.8 l/min - I guess that is okay.


Should be fine.


One issue that concerns me is reliability of a combi - my back boiler gets
next to no service and is 30 years old - glowworm model I'm finding it
excellent value! okay so it isn't quite the efficient boiler of today. Have
combis got more reliable of late?

I'd defer to Ed Sirett, John Stumbles or John Boilerdoc on that one
since they have regular contact, and raden because his company fixes
boards and supplies spares.

Like anything if you buy a decent one then results should be good.
Generally boilers of German origin or design seem to fare well.


Whilst your existing boiler is nigh on indestructible [1]. I think
it is fair to say the combi boiler is no more unreliable that
other modern high-tech boilers. Modern boilers especialy combis
incorporate many of the components which were spread out around the rest of
the house in a conventional system.

Reliability is not a consideration when deciding combi or not.
Modern boilers probably save enough gas to cover their higher repair
costs.


[1] My own did not even
burn out a thermocouple in 14 years. However I had to deal with a scaled
shut float valve at least twice, an over-flowing header tank at least once.
Also 2 pumps.
The usually reason for the death of a back boiler is severe corrosion due
to installation errors or themrostat failure leading to excitement and
consequent loss of customer peace of mind.
They also are some of the most inefficient designs of boilers in use. So
you have been paying for its 'upkeep' with +25% (or more) on your gas
bills.
In my own home we have gone from £480 to £350 for the year.
GlowWorm Galaxy BBU to Keston C25 + tank and wall thermostats.


--
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

In article 0,
mike ring wrote:
Perhaps your main trouble was restriction in the flow caused by the
pipework?

You don't live in a bungerlow, do you?

No - nor a flat. But the idea of needing 30 ft of head is ridiculous.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Tim wrote:
Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each
other Or is this just friendly banter?

I'm constantly amazed at Andy's patience correcting the continual mistakes
and half information from IMM.

That's because one of these people knows what he is talking about, and the
other
likes to think he does. Of the readers following the "banter", those who also
know
what they are talking about, realise this and it is merely a source of
amusement.

Unfortunately, the novices who read this for guidance and information lap it
all up
and I fear some get seriously misled.

Nick

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:35:26 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


The discussion was already covered in ample detail.

Andy, a failure is a failure.

I guess that you'd know more about that than me.....

Of course, I am marking.

Time?

There was no timer limit to the test either, and you still failed.

wrote in message
...

snip mentalism

In article , Dave Plowman (News)

snip mentalism

"mike ring" wrote in message
52.50...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:


Perhaps your main trouble was restriction in the flow caused by the
pipework?

You don't live in a bungerlow, do you?


He lives on a sink estate.

In article ,
nick smith wrote:
Unfortunately, the novices who read this for guidance and information
lap it all up and I fear some get seriously misled.

I'm not an expert in heating systems by any means, but it's fairly obvious
who knows what they're talking about and who is just bull****ting.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"nick smith" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Tim wrote:
Well, I'm gathering recently that you two (IMM/Andy) don't like each
other Or is this just friendly banter?

I'm constantly amazed at Andy's patience correcting the continual
mistakes
and half information from IMM.

That's because one of these people knows what he is talking about, and the
other
likes to think he does. Of the readers following the "banter", those who
also
know
what they are talking about, realise this and it is merely a source of
amusement.

Unfortunately, the novices who read this for guidance and information lap
it
all up
and I fear some get seriously misled.

That is my fear, that is why I interject when blatant misinformation ism
given put.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
That is my fear, that is why I interject when blatant misinformation ism
given put.

See the pub has chucked out again.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:


You don't live in a bungerlow, do you?

No - nor a flat. But the idea of needing 30 ft of head is ridiculous.

Course it is, but I had a head of 7 feet to the surface of the cold tank
from the kitchen tap, which of course was the worst offender, 4 feet to the
shower head which my tank move increased to 9 ft. (but I have a pumped
shower)

I'd removed all obstructions, service valves etc from the kitchn tap and it
still had a pathetic dribble, and I can't put in a proper tap as the compo
sink is drilled for a monobloc (10mm) tails. (New taps, new sink, new
worktop, etc).

The booster pump done a fine job, I wish I'd known about them before moving
the tank.

mike

"mike ring" wrote in message
52.50...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:


You don't live in a bungerlow, do you?

No - nor a flat. But the idea of needing 30 ft of head is ridiculous.

Course it is, but I had a head of 7 feet to the surface of the cold tank
from the kitchen tap, which of course was the worst offender, 4 feet to
the
shower head which my tank move increased to 9 ft. (but I have a pumped
shower)

I'd removed all obstructions, service valves etc from the kitchn tap and
it
still had a pathetic dribble, and I can't put in a proper tap as the compo
sink is drilled for a monobloc (10mm) tails. (New taps, new sink, new
worktop, etc).

The booster pump done a fine job, I wish I'd known about them before
moving
the tank.

Where have you connected the booster pump?