In view of your email address, I'm obliged to ask, "Is that in the context of your own home CH system, or from longer term results in systems you've worked on?
I did spot this, along with all the other, similarly cheap (compared to Fernox) Corgi and Qual-Rad products, last week - indeed, the very reason for my starting this thread.
That has got to be one of the most "Content Free" web sites I've seen in quite a while. :-(
Trying to find 'product information' was a complete waste of time (why no pdf copies of the instructions and legal notices they're obliged to supply with the product packaging?). I gave up after some 20 or 30 minutes trying to hack my way through to some meaningful information on their CH additive products.
However, I did manage to track down the safety data sheets on the ChalChem and Corgi inhibitors via toolstation's 'more information" links which made for interesting reading, particularly the more comprehensive (and particularly interesting) by a country mile, CalChem one.
According to my water supplier, the water is classed as "Soft" with a Hardness Clarke value of 7.175 (whatever the f*ck that's supposed to mean
- yet more googling alas!). A quick google did indeed return a pdf explaining this... from my water supplier's web site of all places!
The soft water might explain why the MB1 treatment[1] I gave the system way back in November 1994 seems to have kept the system in such good shape ever since[2]!
[1] I definitely dosed the system with 6 litres back in November 1994 and, a far as I can figure it, must have done a further top up using 1
1/2 litres of the last 2 litres I had left over[3] when pump isolator problems forced me to do a partial drain down about ten years ago.
[2] I can't believe I would have neglected to apply another Fernox treatment when that pump replacement job took place so long after the
1994 dosing but, looking at the 500mL or so of pale yellow liquid with some yellowish needle like crystals washing around the bottom of the 4 litre container[3] I'd left alongside of the empty MB1 box (missing the tear off label strip) which I've just found next to the header tank, I think I may have elected to simply use up all bar a half litre's worth to dose the header tank with. Perhaps I'd intended to buy another 4 litres to bring it back to full strength again but simply forgot.
[3] I think this must have been the final half litre intended to dose the header tank with - obviously a job waiting for another round tuit to materialise. In view of the condition of a test sample drawn from the boiler drain c*ck (lowest part of the circuit), I'm inclined to simply top up with another 4 litre pack of MB1 from ScrewFix (at a slightly less eye-watering £29.99) and have done with it.
Well, I've always had the conversion value of 4.54 recurring in my mind. A quick comparison between google's value and 'mine' shows less than a
0.014% disagreement, close enough for all but the most exacting demands on accuracy imo. :-)
Anyway, that wasn't the point. I was just correcting my conflating gallons with litres when I mentioned the "55 litre drum". Correcting it to gallons had me wondering what the closest size in litres would be for a metricated "55 gallon drum". Answer, a rather precise 250 litres if you accept the 0.014% discrepancy (a 35ml shortfall).
My own system at home. Why did you think it might be professional?
The site changed since I first looked about 3 years ago. CalChem does have a Safety (Danger, really) sheet but the couple of others that I checked don't. I do have a PDF of the instructions for CalChem, 95kB if you'd like a copy.
Its interesting that Fernox require a greater concentration than other inhibitors (4% vs say the 1% recommended for Sentinal X100)
I can only give you an anecdotal answer... about three years ago I converted my vented system to sealed, did a complete mains water flush of my whole system (21 rads), then treated with 2L of X100. I fitted a Fernox TF1 magnetic/cyclonic filter at the same time. Since then, the filter has collected in total around a desert spoon's full of "stuff" - mainly magnetite. I added another litre of X100 recently as a top up.
So it does seem to be effective in my system so far.
keep in mind this is what was coming out of the system previously:
formatting link
TMMV and all that...
We used to have a Mexico. I did not get rad cold spots etc, but the boiler did kettle, and needed treatment every other year with a noise reducer. I don't know how often if ever the system had been treated prior to my ownership, but it was obviously not spotless as the above pic will attest!
Only yes use some - preferably a recognised brand. Not sure if the cost difference between MB1 and say X100 is really justified - but it may well be.
If it were just down to O2 induced corrosion, then they are probably comparable:
formatting link
However, as you said, the full story is a tad more complicated.
Andy Burns' explanation is on the right track. It wasn't a direct confusion with BG's homecare as such, more the case that Istr seeing a company with the name "Homecall" (or else as a part of their business name). I just "Put Two and Two Together and got Five." (an easy enough error to arrive at when using 'large values of Two' :-).
I just thought it best to ask for clarification on what I thought could be a possible source of 'conflicting interests'.
I've already got an SDS pdf (109.5KiB) of their Cal-Mag branded Central Heating Cleanser / Descaler & Inhibitor. It's no more 'interesting' than the Corgi Corrosion inhibitor safety data sheet (the Qual-Rad Corrosion inhibitor safety data sheet, otoh, now that's a *really* 'interesting' read - all 561.7KiB's worth of it!).
If you can post a link to the user instructions I'll take a look, otherwise don't bother. It's not that important to me any more.
In view of Fernox's apparent efficacy in my own system these past two decades (and no definite consensus of opinion either way), I'm now inclined to simply top up with another 4 litre refreshing dose rather than go through the routine of flushing what remains completely out of the system in order to use a cheaper brand of flushing/cleansing treatment plus a fresh charge of inhibitor.
The size of my own system being larger than the eponymous 10 to 12 rad
100 litre 3/4 bedroom semi-detached CH system oft quoted to justify either a 1% or (in Fernox's case, 4%) solution requiring a 1 litre (or 4 litre) dosing means I need to double up the quantities to deal with a system that, at a conservative estimate must have around 150 litres of capacity.
You can't buy 1.5 or 6 litres of cheap or Fernox inhibitor, it's either
2 or 8 litres. Since my system already has about the equivilent of a litre or two's worth of Fernox MB1 remaining and appears not to be in need of a good flushing/cleansing out, I reckon just a single 4 litre pack at a slightly less eye-watering £29.99 from my local Screwfix will just nicely finish the job.
If I were to choose to use Qual-Rad's cleanser (2 litres) followed up with their inhibitor (2 litres), that would cost me £25.68 in total from Toolstation. If I go the Corgi (concentrate) route it would cost £28.86, also from Toolstation. The Cal-Chem 3 in 1 system protector, otoh, works out the cheapest at just £18.94 for the couple of 1 litre bottles required to treat my system.
At best, I'd only be saving 11 quid but adding one hell of a lot of effort running up and down between 3 to 4 floor levels draining and refilling to flush out the old Fernox mixture to ready it for the change of chemistry along with all the necessary opening and shutting of radiator valves this involves.
On considered reflection (I'm not in good enough shape for such a marathon of effort if truth be told), I think I'll bite the bullet on the additional expense of Fernox MB1. In retrospect, the extra 1 to 11 quid price premium now seems like a small price to pay to avoid all of that questionable exercise.
I think I'll just have done with it and dose, top up/bleed the system and keep my eyes open for a 100 litre and a 50 litre container as insurance against any early drain down events.
Indeed it does! A cubic foot of water approximates to 62 1/2 Lbs for that very reason.
I suppose the 4.5359237 figure depends on which conversion factor you use (2.2Lbs to the Kilo or 28.3g to the ounce or perhaps yet another conversion factor). Let's see now... Aha! That 4.54 recurring figure is the result using the 2.2k to the pound conversion factor tied to the 10 Lbs of water in a gallon 'constant'. :-)
Let's try the 28.3g to the ounce method... That just gets a value of
4.528 litres to the gallon, an even less accurate approximation. I knew the 2.2 Lb to the kilo was a pretty accurate approximation considering the use of just two significant digits but I wouldn't have expected an even larger discrepancy from a 3 digit approximation.
Still and all, that just demonstrates the randomness of accuracy you can get using rounding with such conversions. I'll just keep in mind that the
28.3 grammes to the ounce figure isn't quite so well suited to dealing with litre/gallon conversions and metric tonnes / imperial tons quantities as the 2.2 Lb to the Kilogramme conversion factor. However, it's good enough to let me appreciate that the once traditional 1 ounce pouch of tobacco is now some 11.7% lighter in its metric form of 25 grammes - no bad thing, healthwise, I suppose. :-)
Sorry, no. I just can't find a link at all and can't remember where I got it. There's a bit of info here (and also the same regurgitated on many other sites:
Which appears to be derived from the pound - " the most common today being the international avoirdupois pound which is legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms"
That's the number I remember. Yes, really!
Ah the Imperial gallon is at 62F, ~17C. The litre _was_ water at 0C.
I noticed that too, although their F1 product is supplied in a more concentrated form. This may simply mean they're offering a fourfold extra dosing at the same maximum concentration limit as the others, effectively forcing you into creating a full strength mix which will outlast the competitors' offerings thus gaining a "Reputation for Quality" that despite its potential to outlast 4 or 5 dosings worth of the cheaper stuff, stands a very good chance of being chucked down the drain in the event of any maintenance tasks requiring partial or full drain downs frequently enough for them to make an overall gain in profitability.
However, if that's the case, they didn't reckon against my (admittedly new) policy of collecting any such valuable water/inhibitor mix in a 100 and a 50 litre drum to be recycled in the event of such frequency of drain downs. :-)
Ok, anecdotal evidence seems to be the only type available, if it's well considered anecdotal evidence as yours seems to be, it's a damn sight better than no evidence at all, or worse still, manufacturers' claims.
I did eventually have a google for reviews on the effectiveness of CH inhibitors, something I could have done beforehand although it wouldn't have saved me the need to pose the question as it turned out.
As well as an earlier uk.d-i-y discussion on the subject about 8 years ago, I came across a few web forum discussions which, like the uk,d-i-y one, failed to come to any obvious conclusion regarding a "Best Product Choice" although Fernox and Sentinel both seemed to be highly regarded.
I actually got around to taking a sample from the boiler drain port (lowest part of the system) late last night and it was only the first few cc which splashed onto the concrete floor that looked as black as your picture showed.
I was using a pint glass and the first half pint after that showed a murky yellow liquid with just a thin layer of black particles at the bottom of the glass. The second sampling was a lot less murkier and paler.
I've transferred this to a resealable glass jar with some wirewooled/ degreased nails and a penny coin chucked in by way of a test of the inhibitor strength. It's sat on a shelf in the basement alongside a small glass of tap water with nails and a coin by way of a 'Control'.
Obviously with a test like this, it can take weeks to months before you can draw any conclusions but it's a damn sight cheaper than shelling out on a tub of test strips.
Well, quite! One of the things that seems to save this open vented system from kettling issues in the boiler is the sheer height of the header tank relative to the boiler providing higher static water pressure which will suppress kettling more effectively than it would in a modern 3 bedroom semi-detached system. I was well aware of this when I specified the use of a floor standing boiler in the basement. :-)
Actually, when I took another look at the Fernox labels, it goes even further back than that, November 1994! I had another look for "Evidence" of my presumed later dosing due to the drain down forced on me by events when I came to replacing the faulty pump about ten years ago (the weepy isolator valve spindles turned into little gushers when I tried shutting them off so had to turn them back on and fiddle them about to slow their gushing back down to just a slightly faster weeping rate than previously before shopping around for replacements to let me finish the job).
The *only* evidence I found was one of the original pair of Fernox MB1 boxes (presumed by the tear off label having already been torn off) alongside the header tank along with a one eighth full container of MB1 sat next to that.
The best I can piece together from this is that I must have had a couple of litres left over from the 1994 dosing (I only needed to use 6 litres out of the 8 litre total I'd bought at the time) and only got round to 'freshening up' the system after replacing the pump and the isolator valves. Even then, it looks as though I still kept a half litre back for dosing the header tank, a part of the job I never got round to completing (possibly waiting on my buying another 4 litre pack of MB1 which I also forgot to sort out).
In the end, after seeing how clean the system fill has kept over the past 20 years since its last proper dosing, I decided to stick with the expensive MB1 and bought a 4 litre pack from Screwfix this afternoon for a not quite so eye-watering £29.00 (at least I got change out of thirty quid! :-).
Our water supply is classed as 'Soft' which I think has contributed to the remarkably long life of the MB1 inhibitor's effectiveness. We've no signs of sludging induced problems nor, indeed, sludge itself so rather than completely flush the system through with an alternative cheaper brand of cleaner and a fill with same brand inhibitor, I might as well save myself a lot of grief and just freshen the existing inhibitor back to a strength that approximates what it was to begin with 20 years ago.
TBH, I'm worried I might give myself a heart attack running around the system twiddling rad valves and bleed nipples and everything else associated with draining down/flushing/ refilling with cleaner and then inhibitor that such a change in the system chemistry dictates.
I'm not as fit as I was ten years ago when I fixed the pump and even then I only managed to complete a half assed job of refreshing the inhibitor! The extra 11 quid over my cheapest option is well justified in the circumstances, especially if it's going to avoid the risk of a heart attack!
I did see that wiki page in my googlings around the net. Interesting to note how badly the Protex fared in this test, indistinguishable from the tap water only control sample.
It's a pity that there seems to have been no further testing work as suggested at the end of that article. It's been a good eleven years since John Stumbles did those tests.
All I can add to the discussion is my experience with the seeming effectiveness over the last 20 years of the 30 year life of my system (it was given the Fernox treatment from day one by the installers). If it's normally the practice with the cheaper brands to have to refresh every 2 or 3 years, I'd say the extra cost of Fernox is justified (bearing in mind that my being on a soft water supply may have played no small part in this extended life of the inhibitor).
My decision to carry on with the Fernox treatment, it has to be admitted, is in large part due to it being the 'Path of Least Resistance'. It's worked just fine thus far so there seems every chance of enjoying another ten years of trouble free heating and hot water supply. We'll see how it goes.
Unfortunately so. Maybe my experience will add some more data points for others to work with. In the meantime, I'll close with thanks to all who offered the benefit of their own experience.
I've chosen 'my poison' now so I've only got to apply it, hopefully some time tomorrow, so that will be an end to this thread for the time being. If anything worth mentioning does happen to come up from my final ministrations to the system, I'll report back to this thread by way of 'final closure', otherwise I bid you all adieu.
Yup that helps - ours had relatively little head - perhaps 12' max as the header was on the first floor, not the loft.
I seem to recall it was a fair amount of work flushing my system... even if you only flush each rad for five mins / until clear, by the time you have reversed the flow direction and done them all for the second time, you have visited each rad 4 times, and probably been up and down the stairs for half of those ;-)
I wonder if he still has the jars? ;-)
I think the refresh rate will depend on many factors... with a vented system you are eventually going to run out of O2 scavenger - since the system is open to the air and can always get fresh O2. With a sealed system that is less of a problem.
Obviously if you need to (partly) drain down, or top up frequently, then the inhibitor will need topping up sooner too.
I gave mine an extra litre only because I thought that 2L was only just on the "adequate" side for the system volume, and also the last time I cleaned the filter there was very slightly more debris than previous times (although still very little in absolute terms)
Indeed - the fact you have no need to do a full drain down has to factor heavily in what you use - its much simpler to stay with what is in there.
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.