Intergas...but which...

I'm not spending any more time discussing how crap they and the company are.
The easy option.

No, in fact wooshitter and iirc Faillant have both tried to buy the rights to the Intergas hex design.
and your source for that information is ? . Chatting with the Intergas marketing people ? ( it is noted that you have not accurately named a company that is interested in buying the rights )
 
Sponsored Links
Ferrolli may have poor parts and service. I don't know. I know Italian made boilers had a bad rep at one time. The Ferrolli Modena looks well made and designed going by the video. Very easy to work on as it is well layed out with few components. The efficiency is high. But it does have two pcb boards, one just for the burner/fan. They say this keeps cost of replacements down as the fan side is separate from the rest of the control. They have obviously upped their game. It looks like they are tarnished by past tatty products.

There is a youtube video on commissioning the Intergas. It looks like a flue analyser is not needed while one is needed for the Ferrolli.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Compare that to the patent application diagram which shows U bends fitted to both circuits.

View attachment 115029

That is a large number of soldered joints to be made on an automated production line. No doubt the quality control is high and as a result the production yeald is high enough to make the design cost effective. Failure rate of installed boilers is very low and thus the joints appear to be reliable in service.

The complexity of the manufacturing the Intergas heat exchanger seems high compared to the tube in a tube construction of the Ferroli heat exchanger.
View attachment 115029
Bernard, I am not defaming the Intergas as its rep and solidity is beyond question. However, the CH side of the heat exchanger seems odd to me. The "U" tubes on the side of the heat exchanger seem odd. The water runs though the heat exchanger and out again and then back in via the "U" in the tube running up the heat exchanger as the water is heated. I wonder why, as to me it would make sense to have all the CH tube "inside" the heat exchanger. This must give off heat inside the casing and reduce efficiency.

Yet, the DHW tubing is 100% inside the heat exchanger.

Bernard, Dan did say that Vaillant and Worcester Bosch were interested in making the heat exchanger.
 
Last edited:
It was found necessary to cast the aluminium block around the tubes under high pressure to ensure good contact between aluminium and the copper. To prevent the tubes being squashed by the pressure applied to the liquid aluminium during casting the tubes are filled with something ( sand iirc ) during the casting process. The ends of the section have to be open to allow the sand (?) to be removed. If the U bends were soldered before the aluminium was cast onto the tubes there is the risk that heat from the liquid aluminium could affect the soldered joints.

Yet, the DHW rubing is 100% inside the heat exchanger.
There are patents showng the DHW circuit assembled as per the CH circuit ( exposed and soldered U bends ) and other patents showing it in different formats. Possibly the smaller tube can resist the casting pressure and can therefore be bent to shape without the need for U bends to be soldered on. ( possibly a lower casting pressure is used )
 
It was found necessary to cast the aluminium block around the tubes under high pressure to ensure good contact between aluminium and the copper. To prevent the tubes being squashed by the pressure applied to the liquid aluminium during casting the tubes are filled with something ( sand iirc ) during the casting process. The ends of the section have to be open to allow the sand (?) to be removed. If the U bends were soldered before the aluminium was cast onto the tubes there is the risk that heat from the liquid aluminium could affect the soldered joints.
I see. My logical thinking would be to insulate the "U" tubes on the side of the heat exchanger. Maybe too much cost for too little gain, or whatever reasons they have for not doing it.

Back to another sub-topic on this interesting thread; burner modulation that can run down to very low kW. About 10-15 years ago the makers and mags were saying that it would not be long before we have boilers than will run from 0.5kW to 30kW and above. This would give a one size fits 90% of all domestic homes. For combis it would a matter of choosing the kW need for the DHW flow, as long as the combi can handle the max CH load. One article I recall predicted that most combi boilers will be around 35kW minimum to give decent DHW delivery and maybe one larger model above that like 45-50kW. This would mean makers carrying far fewer boilers in their range, so cheaper to make. There is nothing stopping this technology-wise. We are still waiting.
 
Can't be bothered to increase sales of Intergas anong those who read this thread.

No, go round in a reciprocal question answer debate with someone as boring as yourself when you are clearly not in possession of enough knowledge to be able to apply the information your are given in a practical manner. As has been said to you before. You live in a tiny microcosm where as those of us in the industry engage with multiple information sources. Some can be divulged. Others can't.


And yes, I have let slip information on these forums before that I wasn't supposed to and it caused merry hell with the company concerned.
 
I will suggest that you try Ferroli technical support for advice and perhaps a warranty call and see how far you get without a credit card.
 
About 10-15 years ago the makers and mags were saying that it would not be long before we have boilers than will run from 0.5kW to 30kW and above.

A heat only boiler linked to a correctly sized DHW storage cylinder does not need to have a modulation range of more than 5 to 1. The combi was invented and developed originally and specifically for flats and "compact" houses where storage tanks and/or cylinders were not possible. A combi should be the last option but too many installers see them as the best option.

As has been said to you before. You live in a tiny microcosm where as those of us in the industry engage with multiple information sources. Some can be divulged. Others can't.
You do not know the extent and nature of the information sources that I have access to.
 
A heat only boiler linked to a correctly sized DHW storage cylinder does not need to have a modulation range of more than 5 to 1. The combi was invented and developed originally and specifically for flats and "compact" houses where storage tanks and/or cylinders were not possible. A combi should be the last option but too many installers see them as the best option.
Bernard, the modulation in boilers is not primarily to heat a cylinder, although it can come in handy for that, it is to run down the kW output when heating radiators directly to match heat output of the boiler to the heat demand of the house and prevent boiler cycling.

Combis have come a hell of a long way in 20 years, in reliability, physical size and DHW flow output. In a one bathroomed average British home, a combi should be first choice, as it is difficult to justify not fitting one. Yes, many of them can fill baths fast enough. I would rather have an Intergas 36kW job combi giving very nice hot water flow, than a system boiler and cylinder any day.
 
Last edited:

DIYnot Local

Staff member

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top