Further to my successful attempts to remove the brass valves in my old cast
iron rads, I have been unsuccessful in removing the iron bushes these valves
were mounted in. Now I'm having a bit of a dilemma;

I can keep trying to get the iron bushes out, using more leverage and heat,
but seeing as the rads are about 80 years old I'm thinking they're going to
be well and truly seized. I don't want to break the rads getting them out.
I can fit bushes within bushes to bring the inlet down to 1/2", ready to
take a standard valve, but the rads are currently plumbed for gravity feed -
ie connections top and bottom at one end. Is it possible to plumb them in
to a ring in this manner, or will the efficiency be affected? If so by how
much?

Thanks for your help!

Richard

--
Email at my name with an at sign in the middle and a dot com at the end.

"Richard Geyman" wrote in message
...

Further to my successful attempts to remove the brass valves in my old
cast
iron rads, I have been unsuccessful in removing the iron bushes these
valves
were mounted in. Now I'm having a bit of a dilemma;

I can keep trying to get the iron bushes out, using more leverage and
heat,
but seeing as the rads are about 80 years old I'm thinking they're going
to
be well and truly seized. I don't want to break the rads getting them
out.
I can fit bushes within bushes to bring the inlet down to 1/2", ready to
take a standard valve,

To remove the bushes try soaking around them with 3 in 1 oil and leave
overnight. This will (may) work its way into the threads and ease
extraction. Otherwise heat the rad around the bush not the bush itself the
rads iron will expand and ease extraction.

but the rads are currently plumbed for gravity feed -
ie connections top and bottom at one end. Is it possible to plumb them in
to a ring in this manner, or will the efficiency be affected? If so by
how
much?

It is actually better with flow top, return bottom, gravity or pumped.

IMM wrote:
"Richard Geyman" wrote in message
...


Further to my successful attempts to remove the brass valves in my old

cast

iron rads, I have been unsuccessful in removing the iron bushes these

valves

were mounted in. Now I'm having a bit of a dilemma;

I can keep trying to get the iron bushes out, using more leverage and

heat,

but seeing as the rads are about 80 years old I'm thinking they're going

to

be well and truly seized. I don't want to break the rads getting them

out.

I can fit bushes within bushes to bring the inlet down to 1/2", ready to
take a standard valve,


To remove the bushes try soaking around them with 3 in 1 oil and leave
overnight. This will (may) work its way into the threads and ease
extraction. Otherwise heat the rad around the bush not the bush itself the
rads iron will expand and ease extraction.


but the rads are currently plumbed for gravity feed -
ie connections top and bottom at one end. Is it possible to plumb them in
to a ring in this manner, or will the efficiency be affected? If so by

how

much?


It is actually better with flow top, return bottom, gravity or pumped.



Why? Surely it would be better with flow bottom and return top to get
even temperature across the rad

Nick Brooks

"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Richard Geyman" wrote in message
...


Further to my successful attempts to remove the brass valves in my old

cast

iron rads, I have been unsuccessful in removing the iron bushes these

valves

were mounted in. Now I'm having a bit of a dilemma;

I can keep trying to get the iron bushes out, using more leverage and

heat,

but seeing as the rads are about 80 years old I'm thinking they're going

to

be well and truly seized. I don't want to break the rads getting them

out.

I can fit bushes within bushes to bring the inlet down to 1/2", ready to
take a standard valve,


To remove the bushes try soaking around them with 3 in 1 oil and leave
overnight. This will (may) work its way into the threads and ease
extraction. Otherwise heat the rad around the bush not the bush itself
the
rads iron will expand and ease extraction.


but the rads are currently plumbed for gravity feed -
ie connections top and bottom at one end. Is it possible to plumb them
in
to a ring in this manner, or will the efficiency be affected? If so by

how

much?


It is actually better with flow top, return bottom, gravity or pumped.



Why? Surely it would be better with flow bottom and return top to get
even temperature across the rad

Hot water entering via the flow is at the top of the rad. Air moving across
the rad from the floor, will move across the slightly cooler parts of the
rad at the bottom and gradually pick up heat from the rad as the rads temp
gets hotter the further up the air goes.

In article ,
Nick Brooks writes:

It is actually better with flow top, return bottom, gravity or pumped.



Why? Surely it would be better with flow bottom and return top to get
even temperature across the rad

Flow doesn't matter for a pumped system, but return from the bottom
is best so the return draws the cooler water out of the radiator.
With return at the top, you will be drawing off the hot water which
floats to the top; you will be relying on turbulance inside the radiator
to get the heat to the rest of the panel. With return from the bottom,
hot water entering the radiator floats to the top and expells the cold
from the bottom, more rapidly heating the hole radiator.
Generally, you want a temperature drop across a radiator, and you get
a temperature gradiant top to bottom anyway, so you might as well use
this to obtain your temperature drop. Flow can be top or bottom -- if
it's at the bottom, the hot water instantly rises to the top anyway in
just the first couple of vertical channels.

Interestingly, I notice that with flow and return at the bottom, when
another zone kicks in and dumps a load of cold water into the heating
circuit, the existing hot rads stay hot and you just get a cold flow
across the bottom between the inlet and outlet, until the boiler gets
the new volume of water back up to temperature.

I bought some bottom-entry radiators (as opposed to regular side-entry).
One of the entries is piped to the top internally before is joins the
rest of the radiator. The instructions did actually hint the flow should
be at the bottom and return from the top connection, but I deliberately
ignored this and did it the other way round, and I'm glad I did. I can
only assume the instructions said this so any air would be flusheed out
of the radiator automatically, but as I don't have any air in my system,
that really was of no consequence. When heating comes on, you get the
heat filling the whole width of the radiator working from the top down.
If I had done it the other way, I rather imagine I would get one warm
end where the pipework is, and then a longer time before the heat made
it to the far end of the radiator.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Brooks writes:

It is actually better with flow top, return bottom, gravity or pumped.



Why? Surely it would be better with flow bottom and return top to get
even temperature across the rad

Flow doesn't matter for a pumped system,

No so. In general the flow in a pumped system is on the bottom for
convenience and cosmetic appeal. The work better, pumped or not, when the
flow is on the top of the radiator.

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

Flow doesn't matter for a pumped system,

No so. In general the flow in a pumped system is on the bottom for
convenience and cosmetic appeal. The work better, pumped or not, when the
flow is on the top of the radiator.

Try reading the article again -- you seem to have missed parts of it.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

Flow doesn't matter for a pumped system,

No so. In general the flow in a pumped system is on the bottom for
convenience and cosmetic appeal. The work better, pumped or not, when
the
flow is on the top of the radiator.

Try reading the article again -- you seem to have missed parts of it.

You said your rad worked better with the flow at the top, which it should.