Power flush machines

compheat · 30 Nov 2005

I would like some feed back regarding the use of power flushing using a machine or straight off the mains cold supply??? The reason i ask this question is that I'm not convinced regarding the machine.

I've used a Sentinal jet flush and it just seemed to take longer. It looked the part though

oilman · 30 Nov 2005

Search the forum, this has been covered recently.

slippyr4 · 30 Nov 2005

one thing a machine does, which a hosepipe doesn't, it allow you to cycle cleaning chemical round and round.

Slugbabydotcom · 1 Dec 2005

slippyr4 said:
one thing a machine does, which a hosepipe doesn't, it allow you to cycle cleaning chemical round and round.

Add to the above:- Preventing the waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of drinking water.

slippyr4 · 1 Dec 2005

Slugbabydotcom said:
Add to the above:- Preventing the waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of drinking water.

What do you do when you empty your machine?

Slugbabydotcom · 2 Dec 2005

slippyr4 said:
Slugbabydotcom said:

Add to the above:- Preventing the waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of drinking water.

Click to expand...

What do you do when you empty your machine?

Coil the tubes up and put it back in the van

chrishutt · 2 Dec 2005

I'm an advocate of mains pressure flushing - see this link for a recent debate, including my case.

I would just like to add a defense against the accusation above of "waste, misuse," etc. of water. I would argue that flushing out radiators is a perfectly legitimate and proper use of water, with more justification than cleaning the car or watering the garden, not to mention obsessive showering with power showers, etc.

Slugbabydotcom · 2 Dec 2005

I do mains pressure flushing frequently myself for most installs and replacement and get the machine out only in cases where I feel I can justify its use ie. Bad sludge, big systems and vented systems. That's not a debate that I really want to be a part of as I have my own thoughts principles and practices on it.
What I was trying to point out is the fact that mains flushing uses a lot more water. No one can deny that.
One day the water police will get on our case for it and give us on the spot fines or something. Until that day comes I will mains or powerflush as I see fit for each case.

Eco friendly head 'on':-

Shouldn't we as plumbers be seen to set an example by doing our part to save water?

Eco friendly head 'off'

chrishutt · 2 Dec 2005

slugbaby said:
Shouldn't we as plumbers be seen to set an example by doing our part to save water?

Like refusing to install power showers?

ChrisR · 2 Dec 2005

I often use the mains to do an exploratory flush.
You can use a few washing machine hoses (2.5m ones connected together will connect an outside tap to a rad valve union with no leaking at all) to get some circulation through each rad quite readily.

Judge from what comes out, and see what effect it has. Sometimes it's a very cost-effective tactic, but not a complete clean out by any means. I've done this even where the mains pressure combined with the less-than-ideal connections means the flow rate is quite low, perhaps 10 litres/minute, but the effect has still been dramatic.

Slugbabydotcom · 3 Dec 2005

chrishutt said:
slugbaby said:

Shouldn't we as plumbers be seen to set an example by doing our part to save water?

Click to expand...

Like refusing to install power showers?

You just gave me food for thought there !

Say a ten minute power shower @ 14 l/m uses 140 litres. Wow thats more than a bath!
Now imagine a device that could recycle 2 minutes worth of water and give another 2 minutes worth of fresh water for a rinse at the end. It would save 84 litres of water per shower and be an instant hit with the eco friendlies.

Sorry.... got to go ......I'm off to the patents office

Agile · 3 Dec 2005

This "saving water" notion is a bit of a farce.

Water is recirculated round the globe! Dont you remember when you were about 10 years old, the diagram of water being evaporated from the sea, falling as rain on the land and being washed back into the sea in rivers?

Unless you use the water in a chemical process it remains as water and is just recycled.

OK it has to be filtered and treated and pumped and distributed but thats minimal and anyway you pay for it at about £1.30 per 1000 litres to the supply company.

Providing you pay for water the supply company are happy to sell it and charge you and make their profit ( mostly to the French now ).

Tony

oilman · 3 Dec 2005

It may be a bit of a farce, in the longer term, but in the uk water supplies are from reservoirs and aquifers which are depleted in the summer and refilled in the winter. If too much is used in the summer, the reserviors empty, result, no water until winter.

meldrew's_mate · 3 Dec 2005

Agile said:
This "saving water" notion is a bit of a farce....

....OK it has to be filtered and treated and pumped and distributed but thats minimal and anyway you pay for it at about £1.30 per 1000 litres to the supply company.

Agile, surely that's the main eco cost of providing water. Pumping is a MAJOR cost in electricity and therefore causes electricity to be generated and carbon fuels to be burnt. Also water is treated with vast amounts of ozone (electrically generated) and chlorine and fluoride (sometimes)

Agile said:
...Providing you pay for water the supply company are happy to sell it and charge you and make their profit.

As are the oil companies, but as this is an eco-argument this comment doesn't really fit; the profit motive and Whale saving camps are usually diametrically opposed.

My own view on this is the more energy you use, or cause to be used by the things you comsume or waste, the more eco-damage you do.

chrishutt · 3 Dec 2005

Meldrew's Mate said:
the more energy you use, or cause to be used by the things you consume or waste, the more eco-damage you do.

Absolutely! But that leads us to a simple solution - include the cost of avoiding or repairing (or compensating for) the eco-damage in the price of the energy. End of problem!

At present we do not pay the full cost of our energy (even petrol!) because we do not pay for the environmental consequences. This effectively means we receive subsidised energy which inevitably results in higher consumption levels.

The principle behind this is known as polluter pays. Someone somewhere has to pay for the environmental and other consequences. Should it not be the (typically wealthy, western) consumer of the energy (or resources) rather than desperately poor, low energy users in, say, Bangladesh (who risk being flooded out by rising sea levels).

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Power flush machines

compheat

Similar threads