Central heating upgrade

This man is a clear plantpot.

Please eff off as you are a total plantpot.

Air exchange by random molecular motion _in gases_ is fairly fast. In liquid it would take days.

NT

A restatement of the topic of debate is not meant to be a logical sequitor, it is meant to bring you back to the issue in hand.

NT

pointless abuse in lieu of any factual or logical content

NT

personal abuse is lieu of any factual or logical content.

I've not changed on that, just clarify what we're talking about, since it appears its needed.

still not got it I see

You've mis-grasped again. Since we're talking about when the boiler isn't firing I thought it was pretty evident that we were not talking about the latent heat of vapourisation. The latent heat under discussion at this point is the heat stored in the metal heat exchanger when firing stops. No wonder your responses have been confused.

For clarity, I was never discussing that question. I think we've agreed all along that indiscriminate replacement ins't a constructive policy.

NT

What a moron.

So you now confirm that you did put a cost of capital figure into the calculation, thus making it unusable for the many not in the same financial situation as yourself.

NT

Looks like you misunderstood. Perhaps it would have been marginally clearer to have said 'An old boiler is not a cause for any concern, but if its also cast iron then replace.' I did not anticipate your misunderstanding.

It works better if you grasp whats being said before scorning it :)

The message

from NT contains these words:

"pointless abuse in lieu of any factual or logical content"

What a hypocrite.

The message from NT contains these words:

As I said you don't seem to know what latent heat is. What you are referring to could be called residual heat but no way would anyone with any real understanding of the situation would call it latent heat. It is not even a proper use of the word 'latent' even if the associated 'heat' is ignored.

And just to throw another spanner in your unworkable hypothesis when the boiler isn't firing the the heat exchanger becomes a radiator and one of the characteristics of a radiator is that it radiates. It probably radiates marginally more heat than it loses by conduction. Signification radiation won't escape out the flue.

The message

from NT contains these words:

Still determined to prove what a an ignoramus you are.

In deciding whether or not it is financially beneficial to replace a boiler or not the cost of capital just has to be part of the equation.

There are only 3 sources of capital. Out of your own resources, borrow or steal. The first 2 have a financial cost that has to be taken into account. The 3rd is likely to cost you your liberty and with it the ability to enjoy your new boiler.

If you you use your own capital the calculation must take into account what benefit you would otherwise get if you didn't blow it on a new boiler.

And as for making the calculation unusable you really are trespassing over the borders of insanity. For the individual every very single factor in the calculation needs to be based on their circumstances but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the strange workings of your mind. Any rational person setting out to consider replacing their boiler would start with their existing fuel cost. Your calculation started with the expected fuel cost of the replacement boiler and worked back to the supposed actual cost of the existing installation. Cart before the horse.

I dont think theres any basis for that claim at all. I've said further back in the thread that the latent heat of vapourisation _is_ the plus point of condensing boilers.

according to dictionaries it is an appropriate use of the word. Perhaps you know better than them?

Obviously there will be some radiation, conduction and convection. I dont think thats news.

NT

I'll snip the sillies

It has to be part of the picture, clearly, but not literally the equation. You incorporated it into your equation, I kept it separate so the ROI could be compared to whatever rate a person would be paying, since that rate will vary massively from one person to another. To continue criticising a perfectly valid method shows how little you've comprehended.

ha. Obviously there are other sources too, such as parents for a first time buyer, or a grant. And of course the cost of capaital can vary from savings accounts at 0.1-4% to debt at anything upto 30%+.

As I've said before, incorporating one particular rate made your calculation inapplicable to a lot of people. Its easier to compare it separately.

I'm glad you've now realised that

It doesnt make the remotest difference which order the costs of each option are calculated in. Clearly.

NT

The message

from NT contains these words:

But you had it in the heat exchanger when the boiler was not firing.

I know how to consult a dictionary. You have just proved you don't.

From the Concise Oxford:

"latent /.../ adj.

There is nothing remotely concealed about the heat in the heat exchanger. Perhaps you had in mind Collins Dictionary's 4th meaning:

"(Psychoanal.) relating to that part of a dream expressive of repressed desires."

But I wouldn't care to speculate what particular repressed desire is hidden in your heat exchanger.

In contrast latent heat (Oxford again):

"latent heat n. Physics the heat required to convert a solid into a liquid or vapour, or a liquid into a vapour, without change of temperature."

And the radiated heat escapes out of the flue precisely how?

The message

from NT contains these words:

To persist in claiming a flawed methodology is perfectly valid is the mark of a true ignoramus. Your snake oil salesman's technique is fatally flawed. Remember what you claimed was the ROI?

"thus there is a £327 pa fuel saving from replacement. If a new boiler costs £1500, that's a 21.8% pa return."

It is nothing of the sort. You ignored the £1500 you yourself put forward as the cost of installation which halves your supposed rate of return and you also ignored the fact that the boiler is a wasting asset. At the end of the day your initial investment is worth the best part of bugger all. So if the boiler life is as short as 10 years the ROI is just £27/£3000 (0.9%) and in the very unlikely event that it did last 20 years the ROI only rises to 5.9%, a far cry from 21.8%. And that is using your figures from the margins of cloud-cuckoo land.

Clutching at straws. It still costs someone. That you would disregard the cost to parents or the taxpayer is typical of your simplistic approach to any problem.

You can say what you like but it is still a collection of fatuous nonsense.

I have known that from the start. Unfortunately you haven't. Putting forward a calculation (even if it had been correct) based on extremes isn't going to help the vast majority one iota.

Clearly what? Starting the calculation from the situation in cloud-cuckoo land and attempting to arrive at the status quo indicates an agenda, if nothing else.