On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:55:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:07:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The simplest is to have one thermostat
or sensor and done with it.

You've added an additional thermostat,
a relay and a flow switch.

To improve efficiency, reduce boiler wear and in effect extend the
cylinder
size, without installing a larger cylinder.

Improvement in efficiency is going to
be marginal at best

Nonsense.

Do you have some figures to demonstrate that what I saw and measured
is incorrect? It is possible that there may be something to gain
with an older boiler, but I see no evidence with a recent condensing
product and fast recovery cylinder.




When you require that volume of hot water.

So what happens when the cylinder contains 25% of nominal capacity as
hot water and you want a bath?

You set it up so that it will always give a bath, and have a quick recovery
cylinder er and a powerful boiler taking all its heat.

So in other words with most or all of the capacity of the cylinder
always available as I pointed out.....



snip drivel

Or just have one at the bottom,
maybe plus a flow switch and done with
it.

That creates inefficient boiler cycling and excess wear on boiler
controls.

Only on older boilers and inadequate cylinders.

Nonsense.

Well it isn't unless you have specific figures.


Usability? Stop making things up.

So explain how having only 25%
of available hot water improves the
"size" of the cylinder and system usability.

You set it up to suit. Duh!

With all of the capacity and one thermostat near the bottom.



Figures from one sophisticated boiler which few people have heard of.

I don't believe that in respect of
an experiment like this that any
modern fan flued condensing boiler
in the 90-91% SEDBUK category is
going to behave much differently.

I have just fitted a W-B Greenstar heating only boiler and it acts in no
such way.

So how does it behave? Do you have figures? (and your CORGI
registration)



yes.

As I said, this may be interesting for an old cast iron boiler, but
for a modern condensing one a 2% variation, which is largely
experimental tolerance anyway I suspect, is not important.

Total nonsense.

Sorry but it isn't - I made the measurements myself.



It might make more
difference with an old cast iron or
natural air flow model.

Heat loss through primary pipes is
in the building envelope so is
largely irrelevant.

In the summer it is not. There is also the wear of the boiler controls
with
excessive unnecessary cycling.

Only if there is cycling.

There will be.


Only if the cylinder is unable to absorb the heat being produced by
the boiler.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:56:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


We had the discussion about standing losses several months ago, when I
demonstrated that these are insignificant as well if the cylinder is
well insulated.

You never.


That isn't good English.

If I could be bothered, I would dig out the thread reference, but it
would be a pointless discussion since you would argue that black is
white anyway.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:02:36 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The simplest is to have one thermostat
or sensor and done with it.

snip much tripe by a man with an incomplete life

Look at the DPS web site, and two stats is a common option.


... and this makes it a good idea? Do you believe everything you read
on web sites?

If you want to have an arrangement with a small amount of storage
sometimes and a lot at other times and don't mind the wait to heat up
the difference, then fair enough.

Other than that, the exercise is pointless unless you have an old
fashioned boiler.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
or sensor and done with it.

Look at the DPS web site, and two stats is a common option.

He does not deny that it is sometimes done, merely that it is the simplest
option. The fact that it is an costed option, rather than standard would
indicate that it is not the simplest one.

The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler. Then there is the matter of effective making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip the ramblings of a man with an incomplete life

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:56:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
You never.

That isn't good English.

It is. You and never are in the dictionary.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:25:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip the ramblings of a man with an incomplete life

That was a useful contribution wasn't it :-)



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler. Then there is the matter of effective making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

We're not discussing the simplest way of improving efficiency. We're
discussing the simplest method reheating a cylinder.

The methods being discussed have some advantages. Increased simplicity isn't
one of them, although it may not be sufficient disadvantage to preclude
their implementation.

Christian.

That isn't good English.

It is. You and never are in the dictionary.

English good is this? Think so you.

Christian.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:23:43 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
et...
or sensor and done with it.

Look at the DPS web site, and two stats is a common option.

He does not deny that it is sometimes done, merely that it is the simplest
option. The fact that it is an costed option, rather than standard would
indicate that it is not the simplest one.

The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler.

I think that you would get a similar effect to what I saw on any
recent condensing boiler


Then there is the matter of effective making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller", except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse from the capacity perspective.

..



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:25:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip the ramblings of a man with an incomplete life

That was a useful contribution wasn't it :-)

It was. Yours wasn't.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler. Then there is the matter of effective making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

We're not discussing the simplest way of improving efficiency. We're
discussing the simplest method reheating a cylinder.

No we are not.

The methods being discussed have some advantages. Increased simplicity
isn't
one of them,

A lot more simple than a host of electronics.

although it may not be sufficient disadvantage to preclude
their implementation.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
That isn't good English.

It is. You and never are in the dictionary.

English good is this? Think so you.

Yep.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:23:43 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
et...
or sensor and done with it.

Look at the DPS web site, and two stats is a common option.

He does not deny that it is sometimes done, merely that it is the
simplest
option. The fact that it is an costed option, rather than standard
would
indicate that it is not the simplest one.

The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler.

I think that you would get a similar effect to what I saw on any
recent condensing boiler


Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

, except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier
than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse
from the capacity perspective.

Nonesense.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:38:40 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.net...
The simplest way to improve efficiency, rather than buy an expensive
sophisticated boiler. Then there is the matter of effective making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

We're not discussing the simplest way of improving efficiency. We're
discussing the simplest method reheating a cylinder.

No we are not.

The methods being discussed have some advantages. Increased simplicity
isn't
one of them,

A lot more simple than a host of electronics.

What "host of electronics" ?






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:34:34 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

That isn't good English.

It is. You and never are in the dictionary.

English good is this? Think so you.

Are you sure those were "Yoga" lessons you went to ;-

We're not discussing the simplest way of improving efficiency. We're
discussing the simplest method reheating a cylinder.

No we are not.

I qoute from your original.

"The simplest method to re-heat a cylinder. Have two cylinder stats, top
and
bottom of the cylinder either strap-on or immersed."

Your statement was that this method was the simplest method to re-heat a
cylinder. It is a method to heat the cylinder, it may even be a better
method in some circumstances, but it is NOT the simplest.

Christian.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?


, except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier
than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse
from the capacity perspective.

Nonesense.


How does adding a thermostat which has the effect of allowing most of
the cylinder contents to fall to cold water temperature increase the
volume of hot water?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
We're not discussing the simplest way of improving efficiency. We're
discussing the simplest method reheating a cylinder.

No we are not.

I qoute from your original.

"The simplest method to re-heat
a cylinder. Have two cylinder stats, top
and bottom of the cylinder either strap-on or immersed."

Correction. Typo. The simplest method to efficiently re-heat a cylinder.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?

The cylinder.

, except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier
than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse
from the capacity perspective.

Nonesense.

How does adding a thermostat which has the effect of allowing most of
the cylinder contents to fall to cold water temperature increase the
volume of hot water?

You should read properly. That was to make the re-heat more efficient.
Other methods were given to increase the hot water volume a cylinder will
produce. Duh!

"Christian McArdle" wrote
| A trip to the A&E at RBH is never a pleasurable experience
| at any time
| :-)
| Yes, I last went when my GLW decided to squirt half a bottle of
| superglue in my eye from 2m away. She was quite a good shot and
| the nozzle does produce a very tightly defined stream.

Why people have to get so inventive is beyond me, if it's not in Alex
Comfort don't try it :-)

| It has been completely rebuilt in the last few years, so isn't
| the shabby shell it used to be.

I'm glad the eye has recovered. Have they done anything about the hospital.

Owain

"Christian McArdle" wrote
| That isn't good English.
| It is. You and never are in the dictionary.
| English good is this? Think so you.

"I speak English very well. I learn it from a book."
(Manuel as a talking moose in Fawlty Towers.)

Owain

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:18:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?

The cylinder.

Well I didn't imagine that it would be from the Yellowstone Geyser.

Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the volume
of available hot water?



, except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier
than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse
from the capacity perspective.

Nonesense.

How does adding a thermostat which has the effect of allowing most of
the cylinder contents to fall to cold water temperature increase the
volume of hot water?

You should read properly. That was to make the re-heat more efficient.
Other methods were given to increase the hot water volume a cylinder will
produce. Duh!

OK, so let's summarise before you attempt to draw attention away from
your confused solution any further.

1) You suggested a scheme involving two thermostats and a relay as an
attempt to improve the efficiency from the boiler because it would
burn for longer and hence be more efficient than running it for
shorter periods.

2) I said that from tests that I did with a condensing boiler and fast
recovery cylinder that I found no evidence that a scheme like this
would make any notable difference to efficiency.
I also said that I could see no reason why any boiler of condensing
type of recent design and in the 90-91% SEDBUK category would be
substantially different.
I did say that I could see a reason why this approach *might* help an
old fashioned cast iron boiler with natural draft flue, especially
with a non fast-recovery cylinder.

3) I pointed out that implementing such a scheme with two thermostats
will result in times where there is as little as a quarter of the
total volume of the cylinder available as hot water. If that
happens to be at a time when there is a sudden large demand for water
to run a bath or shower, then that volume will exhaust quickly and the
user will be left with whatever the boiler can do on an instant basis.
Given the mixing effect of incoming cold water rushing into the
cylinder, the results will be fairly poor.
This was my point about reducing the available volume of hot water

4) You raised the point about having a flow switch to fire up the
boiler the moment that hot water is used and therefore bringing the
boiler on before the thermostat otherwise would.

5) You suggested that both methods together were a good idea, both
improving efficiency and increasing available hot water.

6) I said that although having a flow switch does have the effect of
bringing the boiler into operation earlier and was worth doing, it
won't compensate for the loss of 75% of the storage capacity from the
other scheme with two thermostats

In fact the effect of the flow switch, if just on the cylinder output
would be to fire up the boiler each time you start drawing even small
amounts of hot water, thus defeating the object of the thermostats
scheme.

One way that this could be circumvented would be to only allow the
flow switch to activate the boiler if both thermostats were
indicating that a recovery and boiler run should happen. At this
point, there is less than 25% of hot water left anyway. It is likely
that the boiler won't have done enough in time to prevent the stored
water being exhausted.

For most of the time, the lower thermostat will be calling demand and
the upper one not and there is no way to know with a simple thermostat
arrangement like this whether there is 25% or 75% of HW left and
therefore whether the boiler should be fired up when water is drawn.
This could be handled by having separate plumbing runs for the bath
and shower and having the flow to those monitored.
Otherwise the arrangement will be worse overall than just having a
single thermostat with its hysteresis. You will fire up the boiler,
every time the hot tap runs at all, whcih is precisely what you didn't
want to happen because it's less efficient (or so you say).

I don't think you thought through the implications of your solution
before suggesting it.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:18:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?

The cylinder.

Well I didn't imagine that it would be from the Yellowstone Geyser.

Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the volume
of available hot water?

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

, except for adding a flow
switch to start the boiler earlier
than the thermostat would.
Everything else made it worse
from the capacity perspective.

Nonesense.

How does adding a thermostat which has the effect of allowing most of
the cylinder contents to fall to cold water temperature increase the
volume of hot water?

You should read properly. That was to make the re-heat more efficient.
Other methods were given to increase the hot water volume a cylinder will
produce. Duh!

OK, so let's summarise before you attempt to draw attention away from
your confused solution any further.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

1) You suggested a scheme involving two thermostats and a relay as an
attempt to improve the efficiency from the boiler because it would
burn for longer and hence be more efficient than running it for
shorter periods.

2) I said that from tests that I did with a condensing boiler and fast
recovery cylinder that I found no evidence that a scheme like this
would make any notable difference to efficiency.

Which of course in nonsense.

I also said that I could see no reason why any boiler of condensing
type of recent design and in the 90-91% SEDBUK category would be
substantially different.
I did say that I could see a reason why this approach *might* help an
old fashioned cast iron boiler with natural draft flue, especially
with a non fast-recovery cylinder.

3) I pointed out that implementing such a scheme with two thermostats
will result in times where there is as little as a quarter of the
total volume of the cylinder available as hot water. If that
happens to be at a time when there is a sudden large demand for water
to run a bath or shower, then that volume will exhaust quickly and the
user will be left with whatever the boiler can do on an instant basis.
Given the mixing effect of incoming cold water rushing into the
cylinder, the results will be fairly poor.
This was my point about reducing the available volume of hot water

4) You raised the point about having a flow switch to fire up the
boiler the moment that hot water is used and therefore bringing the
boiler on before the thermostat otherwise would.

5) You suggested that both methods together were a good idea, both
improving efficiency and increasing available hot water.

6) I said that although having a flow switch does have the effect of
bringing the boiler into operation earlier and was worth doing, it
won't compensate for the loss of 75% of the storage capacity from the
other scheme with two thermostats

In fact the effect of the flow switch, if just on the cylinder output
would be to fire up the boiler each time you start drawing even small
amounts of hot water, thus defeating the object of the thermostats
scheme.

You don't read. I said on the highest flow taps, bath/shower.

For most of the time, the lower thermostat will be calling demand and
the upper one not and there is no way to know with a simple thermostat
arrangement like this whether there is 25% or 75% of HW left and
therefore whether the boiler should be fired up when water is drawn.
This could be handled by having separate plumbing runs for the bath
and shower and having the flow to those monitored.
Otherwise the arrangement will be worse overall than just having a
single thermostat with its hysteresis. You will fire up the boiler,
every time the hot tap runs at all, whcih is precisely what you didn't
want to happen because it's less efficient (or so you say).

I don't think you thought through the implications of your solution
before suggesting it.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:32:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:18:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?

The cylinder.

Well I didn't imagine that it would be from the Yellowstone Geyser.

Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the volume
of available hot water?

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

No just answer the question.




OK, so let's summarise before you attempt to draw attention away from
your confused solution any further.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

1) You suggested a scheme involving two thermostats and a relay as an
attempt to improve the efficiency from the boiler because it would
burn for longer and hence be more efficient than running it for
shorter periods.

2) I said that from tests that I did with a condensing boiler and fast
recovery cylinder that I found no evidence that a scheme like this
would make any notable difference to efficiency.

Which of course in nonsense.

No, I made the measurements and did two runs of each test. The
results were consistent to about 2% as I said.





In fact the effect of the flow switch, if just on the cylinder output
would be to fire up the boiler each time you start drawing even small
amounts of hot water, thus defeating the object of the thermostats
scheme.

You don't read. I said on the highest flow taps, bath/shower.

Ah, so it requires a replumb of the house to make it work.



For most of the time, the lower thermostat will be calling demand and
the upper one not and there is no way to know with a simple thermostat
arrangement like this whether there is 25% or 75% of HW left and
therefore whether the boiler should be fired up when water is drawn.
This could be handled by having separate plumbing runs for the bath
and shower and having the flow to those monitored.
Otherwise the arrangement will be worse overall than just having a
single thermostat with its hysteresis. You will fire up the boiler,
every time the hot tap runs at all, whcih is precisely what you didn't
want to happen because it's less efficient (or so you say).

I don't think you thought through the implications of your solution
before suggesting it.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

That isn't necessary. By avoiding the issues, you've answered my
questions.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:32:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:18:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:41:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Then there is the matter of effectively making your
cylinder bigger by adding some simple controls.

But you haven't - you made it "smaller"

No bigger as it gives a larger volume of hot water.

From where?

The cylinder.

Well I didn't imagine that it would be from the Yellowstone Geyser.

Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the volume
of available hot water?

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

No just answer the question.

All is there. I'm not going around the mulberry bush.

OK, so let's summarise before you attempt to draw attention away from
your confused solution any further.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

1) You suggested a scheme involving two thermostats and a relay as an
attempt to improve the efficiency from the boiler because it would
burn for longer and hence be more efficient than running it for
shorter periods.

2) I said that from tests that I did with a condensing boiler and fast
recovery cylinder that I found no evidence that a scheme like this
would make any notable difference to efficiency.

Which of course in nonsense.

No, I made the measurements and did two runs of each test. The
results were consistent to about 2% as I said.





In fact the effect of the flow switch, if just on the cylinder output
would be to fire up the boiler each time you start drawing even small
amounts of hot water, thus defeating the object of the thermostats
scheme.

You don't read. I said on the highest flow taps, bath/shower.

Ah, so it requires a replumb of the house to make it work.



For most of the time, the lower thermostat will be calling demand and
the upper one not and there is no way to know with a simple thermostat
arrangement like this whether there is 25% or 75% of HW left and
therefore whether the boiler should be fired up when water is drawn.
This could be handled by having separate plumbing runs for the bath
and shower and having the flow to those monitored.
Otherwise the arrangement will be worse overall than just having a
single thermostat with its hysteresis. You will fire up the boiler,
every time the hot tap runs at all, whcih is precisely what you didn't
want to happen because it's less efficient (or so you say).

I don't think you thought through the implications of your solution
before suggesting it.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

That isn't necessary. By avoiding the issues, you've answered my
questions.

Read again. This is for your own good.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:34:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the volume
of available hot water?

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

No just answer the question.

All is there. I'm not going around the mulberry bush.

Something's there - it's simply conflicting and inaccurate.




For most of the time, the lower thermostat will be calling demand and
the upper one not and there is no way to know with a simple thermostat
arrangement like this whether there is 25% or 75% of HW left and
therefore whether the boiler should be fired up when water is drawn.
This could be handled by having separate plumbing runs for the bath
and shower and having the flow to those monitored.
Otherwise the arrangement will be worse overall than just having a
single thermostat with its hysteresis. You will fire up the boiler,
every time the hot tap runs at all, whcih is precisely what you didn't
want to happen because it's less efficient (or so you say).

I don't think you thought through the implications of your solution
before suggesting it.

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

That isn't necessary. By avoiding the issues, you've answered my
questions.

Read again. This is for your own good.

No, it's OK, thanks, the situation is completely clear.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:34:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Please answer the question. How does having an arrangement which
causes a large proporion of the cylinder contents to fall in
temperature to practically cold water temperature increase the
volume
of available hot water?

Read the thread all again from the beginning.

No just answer the question.

All is there. I'm not going around the mulberry bush.

Something's there - it's simply conflicting and inaccurate.

You can't read.

Read again. This is for your own good.

No, it's OK, thanks, the situation is completely clear.

Keep up the reading, it may become clear.