Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay valve and weepline stat on one of them!.
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
Non of yer new fangled condensing malarky here. I even spotted a relay valve and weepline stat on one of them!.
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
These all look incredibly modern compared to the boiler in my house when I moved in (1969). It was oil, which was dripped into a round dish and burned with a swan-neck pipe blowing air into the centre of the dish. It packed up about 3 weeks later.
Wow that does sound crude. The fore runner to the forced draught burner perhaps?
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
I thought it was me ...
Mary
Yep, I used to work on them. A tube of neatsfoot oil for the leather diaphragm on the relay valve cured any gas leaks and made it run smoother. They were purely non-electric controls with weep pipes going to the boiler 'stat, room 'stat and mechanical clock too. Some had modulating burners, in that the stats were gradual acting and would slowly close or remain stable. In doing so the relay valve would move up and down reducing the gas to the burner, modulating the burner. It took many years to get modulation with electric controls. There were some kits available to replace the leather diaphragms with neoprene in the valves. They were very reliable, more reliable than the electric controls. They were simple...once you understood them. The average plumber would run a mile from them.
Yes, mine would have come second, but I ripped it out a year or two back. It dated was made by Powell Dufryn (?) in 1963, cast iron, one section, the thermostat was operated by gas pressure. Still working when I dumped it, the most complex bit was a buzzing solenoid valve. It lit with an alarming 'whoompf' sound.
In comparison, see this;
The author has made the typical confusion between combi and condensing boilers. One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph doesn't always get things right - but one would have hoped that a journal purporting to explain science could do a bit better than this.
The message from "Aidan" contains these words:
argument with someone about cars.
"The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not include these secondary energy costs in its efficiency ratings for boilers. Until the full life cycle is factored in - including costs to install, service, maintain and recycle - boilers and other supposedly energy-saving products may generate more pollution, not less."
Yeah, and you can bet DoT doesn't do so with new cars, either. I keep meaning to ask Last Word where the break even point is between scrapping a moderately efficient old car and building a new more efficient one. I can't believe it's always better to scrap old cars just 'cos they're less efficient.
The message from Andy Hall contains these words:
Well, it was a letter rather than an article, so New Scientist isn't directly responsible for the views expressed, but often the debate stimulated by such letters is revealing.
Anyway, just 'cos he mentions combination boilers and may have meant condensing boilers doesn't mean the whole argument is wrong. I happen to think he may well have a point.
Modern cars are infinitely more reliable, with far less service intervals, than older cars, especially Hondas and Toyotas.
"Take one example. A survey of gas installers that I and colleagues conducted in the Nottingham area revealed that some 40 per cent of today's energy-efficient combination boilers break down within the first year, and ongoing repair and service costs can average £160 per year. Boiler lifespans are down to only three years in some cases."
He and his colleagues carried out? 3 years? Get a life!! Only in the Torygraph! "The energy expended in repairs, manufacturing of parts, distribution networks and so on may soon outstrip the working energy saved by the new-style boilers - if it hasn't already. As a result, a so-called energy-saving boiler may use more energy and be more polluting than a simple old-style boiler with manual pilot light and cast-iron components."
More total bollocks.
He hasn't a point at all. This is tabloid misinformation crap based on firm data at all.
They are scrapped because they are not economically viable to fix. They can all be fixeded, but cost more to fix than what the market value is.
One of my favourite boilers is the Dutch Atmos because of the large copper coil/aluminium heat exchanger. The controls are very simple and ultra reliable.
They even have a no drain condensing model. They have only recently been sold in the UK. A real quality product. Expensive but worth it.
He may have. I think it more likely that he meant exactly what he said; "...........that some 40 per cent of today's energy-efficient combination boilers break down within the first year"
I spent some time trying to steer a relative away from a combi. They're more complex than the equivalent system boiler and just have more parts to go wrong. The relative lives in a hard water area.
I doubt that my new boiler will last the 40 years it's predecessor did. I'm spending a lot less on gas though.
One might expect it in the press - even the Telegraph
It was a letter and I've no idea whether the author has any technical background. It sounds quite plausible.
I've never been convinced of that either but am always shouted down!
Mary
The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
Were you the Mary Fisher on Feedback today?
Your lucky then.. I estimate that I would save at most £5pm over what my 25 year old boiler uses. It will take a long time to save the cost of a new "modern" boiler.
I cannot tell a lie!
It was a surprise to us too but I didn't think anyone else would notice. It was sent about three weeks ago.
Mary
A 90% plus condensing boiler will drop your bills ~40% over an old cast-iron job. If it is only £5 a month then you don't use much gas. Or the system has been poorly installed.
The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
You and Yours have done that to me a couple of times, too.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.