Ravenheat CSI85 - Stronger Earth???

[Woolf]

Thanks for your reply D Hailsham,

Allowing for the fact that my new boiler could be classed as a replacement system (as you describe above) - I'm looking at Table 2, end column 'Minimum provisions for replacement systems', and the row 'Space heating zones.' Where the two intersect it says:

As defined for new systems except where the boiler only is replaced, in which case reasonable provision for a space heating system would be to control as one zone.

And I think (as per Table 2) that that provision is met by the heating control and programmable timer on the boiler!

You mention interlock requirements, and suggest that this means a room stat - but that detail isn't specified in the Table! I believe that my programmable timer also achieves interlock...?

Page 12, (f) continues: '...if an individual component of the control system is being replaced...it is not necessary to upgrade the system to meet the minimum requirements.' It gives the example of a room stat. But taken literally, since a new boiler is classed as a 'component' of the system, (p. 11, 2.2, c) I wonder if this part of (f) could cover a replacement boiler too? My boiler has a programmable timer after all - it's part of a control system...

As we both agree, these points are academic because I'm going to get a room thermostat anyway. But it does show how interpretable these regulations are - and, as we also both acknowledge - this sort of text should be better written, so that there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation.

 

[Woolf]

Putting your controls to one side for a moment

As long as you have an external by-pass that can pass the minimum flow the boiler/pump needs then even if you run the boiler 24/7 it should work. Your boiler should be able to shut down when it is up to temp and come back on when it cools down from it set temp with out over heating and locking out.

Now saying that your boiler will work better not blasting out heat!!!
You want warm rooms not red hot rads, the aim is to replace the heat that is lost from the house only

Thanks Mehran - I'm going to get a room thermostat. As I mentioned earlier, before the engineer came to repair the boiler, it had never been set higher than about '10 to the hour' (using clock dial notation). It has about two thirds more capacity than that! Although we leave the heating on 24/7, we don't go much above 70 degrees in our main living area, and less in other areas of the house and at different times.

 

[D_Hailsham]

You mention interlock requirements, and suggest that this means a room stat - but that detail isn't specified in the Table! I believe that my programmable timer also achieves interlock...?

A thermostat may not be specifically mentioned, but you need to bear in mind the purpose of the Regulations which state:
L1 Reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings by—
(b) providing and commissioning energy efficient fixed building services with effective controls

It is all to do with saving energy. This means that the boiler should be shut down when not required, i.e when the room or hot water is up to temperature. If reliance is placed solely on the time switch and the boiler's internal thermostat, the boiler will continue to cycle on and off long after the room/water has reached temperature, with the consequent waste of fuel; thus failing to comply with Part L

Page 12, (f) continues: '...if an individual component of the control system is being replaced...it is not necessary to upgrade the system to meet the minimum requirements.' It gives the example of a room stat. But taken literally, since a new boiler is classed as a 'component' of the system, (p. 11, 2.2, c) I wonder if this part of (f) could cover a replacement boiler too? My boiler has a programmable timer after all - it's part of a control system...

An interesting point of view; but I think the fact that it is a boiler is of more significance that the fact that it has time switch. As a boiler, it gets trapped by the replacement system requirements; which unfortunately mean that the control system has to be brought up to current regs.

As we both agree, these points are academic because I'm going to get a room thermostat anyway. But it does show how interpretable these regulations are - and, as we also both acknowledge - this sort of text should be better written, so that there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation.

It is a change to have an intelligent discussion on the meaning of the Regulations rather than the entrenched position, mud-slinging, arguments which frequently occur on this site.


Approved Document L1B Page 16
7 The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure should not involve excessive technical risk.

What does should not mean in this context: discuss

 

[Agile]

[
Approved Document L1B Page 16
7 The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure should not involve excessive technical risk.

What does should not mean in this context: discuss

I think its more interesting to consider what "excessive technical risk" is meant to mean!

Tony

 

[ChrisR]

One note of alarm -

So it's been opened fully (the abv). This seems like a fairly simple solution and as a layman I wonder why it's taken so many engineer visits and so much hassle to reach this conclusion.

Opening it fully means that you have much less pressure available to pump water round the system. It's like a shot-circuit. Much better if it's set correctly, by looking at the flow requirement, pump curve and pressure drop in the boiler.

 

[D_Hailsham]

Much better if it's set correctly, by looking at the flow requirement, pump curve and pressure drop in the boiler.

In a previous post,

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=700887#700887

Simple:
1. See boiler instrs to see what flow rate is required.
2. See pump curve to see what pump head will produce that.
3. See boiler instrs to determine head loss through boiler, then work out for pipe, at that flow rate.
4. Set ABV to pump head minus flow head losses.

I can understand 1 and 2, but have difficulty with 3 and 4. Could ChrisR please explain more fully?

 

[Woolf]

Approved Document L1B Page 16
7 The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure should not involve excessive technical risk.

What does should not mean in this context: discuss

Hi D Hailsham,

Who decrees that 'should not' must be read in context? I might not understand the context. So I'm going to read it from the point of view of language only. In this case it means it 'ought not' to.

Agile, I think that what D Hailsham is getting at is whether or not the text makes it imperative to consider that excessive technical risk. If it doesn't, then its an ineffective piece of writing which doesn't do its job. It should read 'must' to be effective: ie. 'the inclusion of any particular energy efficiency must not involve excessive technical risk.'

...I wonder why it doesn't, D Hailsham?

With regards to that note of alarm...shall I just move house...?

 

[D_Hailsham]

Approved Document L1B Page 16
7 The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure should not involve excessive technical risk.

What does should not mean in this context: discuss

Hi D Hailsham,

Who decrees that 'should not' must be read in context? I might not understand the context. So I'm going to read it from the point of view of language only. In this case it means it 'ought not' to.

Agile, I think that what D Hailsham is getting at is whether or not the text makes it imperative to consider that excessive technical risk. If it doesn't, then its an ineffective piece of writing which doesn't do its job. It should read 'must' to be effective: ie. 'the inclusion of any particular energy efficiency must not involve excessive technical risk.'

What I was actually driving at is that should not can be taken to mean one of two things. The first is the imperative, i.e. must not. The second is more subtle and is best explained by an example:

You go to the doctor and he prescribes some medication saying "You should not have any side effects with these." He is not saying you must not have any side effects; that is ordering you not to have any side effects. All he is saying is that the likelihood of you having any side effects is negligible.

So, to get back to my original question, does the phrase should not mean must not, or dose it mean that the inclusion of ... measure is unlikely to any technical risk.

Now most people will say that, in this context, "should not" means "must not". The alternative simply does not make sense.

So, if we are being consistent, the use of should or should not, must always be interpreted to mean must or must not.

 

[Agile]

[
Who decrees that 'should not' must be read in context? I might not understand the context. So I'm going to read it from the point of view of language only. In this case it means it 'ought not' to.

What I was actually driving at is that should not can be taken to mean one of two things. The first is the imperative, i.e. must not. The second is more subtle and is best explained by an example:

You go to the doctor and he prescribes some medication saying "You should not have any side effects with these." He is not saying you must not have any side effects; that is ordering you not to have any side effects. All he is saying is that the likelihood of you having any side effects is negligible.

So, to get back to my original question, does the phrase should not mean must not, or dose it mean that the inclusion of ... measure is unlikely to any technical risk.

Now most people will say that, in this context, "should not" means "must not". The alternative simply does not make sense.

Thats not a very effective example because the patient does not have any control over any side effects of drugs.

Perhaps a better example would be in relation to driving cars.

A policeman man after breathalising the driver in the pub and finding him just BELOW the limit might say to him in an advisory role "you should not drive home because you are close to the legal limit".

On the other hand if the driver is just OVER the limit the policeman will say "you MUST NOT drive home" because that is against the law.

My interpretation is that you "should" fit TRVs etc but if you dont then you will not go to prison!

But I still dont know what an "excessive technical risk" is!

Tony

 

[D_Hailsham]

So now we have at least three meanings for should:

1. You should ... = You must ...
2. You should ... = I suggest or advise you ....
3. This should ... = This is likely to ...

As the Concise Oxford Dictionary puts it:

Should

1. used to indicate obligation, duty or correctness also used to give or ask advice or suggestions.
2. used to indicate what is probable

There are other uses, but they are not relevant.

Now my first two uses are synonymous with Oxford's first meaning, while my third ties in with their second meaning.


Woolf tries to disassociate 'should' from the context and suggest that it means 'ought'. But this word is no clearer than 'should' as it also has several meanings, which are almost identical to those of 'should'. So we are no further forward.

Woolf also suggests that the context of the sentence is irrelevant and that the meaning can be determined simply from the words. But, if we take it out of context, we are left left with a dichotomy. Does the sentence:

The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure should not involve excessive technical risk

mean:

The inclusion of any particular energy efficiency measure (must not or is unlikely to) cause excessive technical risk?

The first meaning is giving instruction/advice (Oxford 1), the second is just describing what is the likely effect (Oxford 2). The only way of determining what is meant is to take the sentence in context.

 

[Woolf]

Hi D Hailsham and Agile,

Nope, sorry D Hailsham. You cannot tell people how they should read. If these were points of law, perhaps the language would be less ambiguous. People are entitled to interpret according to language, not to context. As described previously, lawyers have a field day with these sorts of interpretations.

But it is a very interesting issue and I think it's very creditable that you have the diligence to discuss this sort of detail. D Hailsham, different ways of reading have preoccupied literary approaches for a good part of the twentieth century. Basically, the authority of the writer has been challenged over this time, (ie. the writer's intention has been challenged) and emphasis has instead been put on the reader to make of a text what he/she will. (Incidentally, it was about at this stage in Bridget Jones' Diary that Hugh Grant escaped to the loo - do you remember, when Salman Rushdie asked him a question about FR Leavis, I think). And this subject has obviously got more relevance to texts like novels (rather than Regulations)!! But it does show that language is very slippery, and people writing this type of Regulation Guide should be aware of it!

Or are they? Is the language deliberately ambiguous and interpretable because these regulations are not points of law???

 

[Agile]

I have to disagree with the learned Woolf LJ.

Its the writer who sets the meaning he intends to convey. His words mean no more and no less than he wishes.

As Humpty Dumpty explained "When I use a word," he said, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less".

Its quite easy for a reader to misconstrue the intended meaning, that capacity increases if the reader's knowledge of the language is limited or poor.

But I still don't know what an "excessive technical risk" might mean!

Tony

 

[JohnD]

I fear "excessive technical risk" is determined afterwards.

If you do something and it goes wrong, you can be accused of taking excessive risk.

If it doesn't go wrong, no-one will (usually) bother.

This is in fact not the correct way to evaluate risk or decision making, but it is very popular.

 

[cowboyplumber]

Take no notice of these clowns...
All you need is an 'Even Stronger Earth'...

 

[D_Hailsham]

I have to disagree with the learned Woolf LJ.

Very subtle! I wonder who many readers know who he is?

Its the writer who sets the meaning he intends to convey. His words mean no more and no less than he wishes.

As Humpty Dumpty explained "When I use a word," he said, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less".

Its quite easy for a reader to misconstrue the intended meaning, that capacity increases if the reader's knowledge of the language is limited or poor.

As the old adage goes: take the text out of its context and you create a pretext.

There are books galore on the subject of discourse analysis

But I still don't know what an "excessive technical risk" might mean!

Neither do I, but who cares