Your assumptions on heat loss are way out. Also this 'expensive' eclectic heater only does one tap. This house 'needs' a secondary loop because of the excessive dead leg in the draw-off. The loop will do all taps and cost no more than an expensive electric heater. You are flogging a dead horse.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:09:58 -0000 someone who may be "Doctor Drivel" wrote this:-
None of this for your recommended "solution"?
Correct. One tap appears to be all the original poster wants to do. Multiple taps would be a different matter, but that is not what was asked.
Which particular house?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:11:28 -0000 someone who may be "Doctor Drivel" wrote this:-
Not something that has been advocated.
The question is about one tap located remote from the boiler and used infrequently. If the question was a different one then a circulating hot water main may be the right answer.
The group has been told by a number of people, including myself, that any such arrangement should be insulated. However, insulation does not reduce heat losses to zero.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:47:37 +0000 someone who may be Richard A Downing wrote this:-
I think you have made the right decision.
To minimise losses boilers or hot water cylinders should be situated by the most used sink and dead legs minimised. Ideally the house should be designed around the services, with these arranged in a compact core horizontally or vertically depending on whether a bungalow or multi-storey house.
If things are spread all over the place then it becomes more difficult to service them economically. For a remote infrequently used sink an under-sink electric heater is ideal. For groups of remote taps a gas multi-point heater was the traditional approach, but there is now a range of other things to consider. For example, solar and electric storage can also be sensible in the right conditions.
He has realised he needs to all taps with excessive dead legs.
It has been assessed he needs all taps seeing to.
Buckingham Palace.
He needs a secondary circulation loop. That is what he needs. What he wants and what he needs are two different things.
The heat loss will be minimal and considering the gains well worth it. BTW, the electric heater looses heat too. It is storage and 10 litres heated to
55C all day and night will loses heat too.
Goddam amateurs. A pain in the arse. The mans clearly need a loop and professional is guiding him on how to do it. The problem is that may actually think you know what you are talking about and take notice.
** snip irrelevant advice **
None of this for your recommended "solution"?
Correct. One tap appears to be all the original poster wants to do. -----------------
Thank you, David, now I know what "the O.D." stands for.
Sylvain.
David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
But the OP can do all the taps for less and nor spend extra money on electricity.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:07:44 -0000 someone who may be "Doctor Drivel" wrote this:-
Others can decide for themselves on whether they believe your assertions.
Although I'm not a great fan of "mine's bigger then yours" discussions I will make a rare exception. I spent a decade designing, commissioning, maintaining and researching building services in a variety of buildings. Big and small, commonplace and very unusual. I have a little idea about such things.
Having typed that I will return to letting my arguments speak for themselves. The original poster has made the right decision in my view.
Well if you read the posts you will see that he will have a big problem in dead leg draw-off pipes to taps and would have said, install a secondary circulation loop - and it will cost no more than ONE electric water heater than only serves one tap as well. Building services? More like the cables, not heating or water systems in any depth that is clear. Not with that logic.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required