Intergas Xtreme 127.6% Efficiency

[Gasguru]

Of course not....these test houses and the type approval methods are corrupt. They all compete with one another for business and conspire to give favourable results.
Most sensible heating installers know the efficiency scoring has gone way too far and is largely meaningless.
Cost of installation, servicing costs, out of warranty repairs and parts, longevity, manufacturer backup....these are way more important than a little extra efficiency. Whats's the point in saving a few quid on gas if the eco pump packs in and looses any savings etc.
By all means score one boiler against another...it just shows your naive. The manufacturers take advantage of you.
Eco nut .....one that can't see the wood from the trees.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Most sensible heating installers know the efficiency scoring has gone way too far and is largely meaningless.

Indeed, sonewhere I have a boiler brochure from 2003 that claims a standard efficiency boiler was 108%.

It's the same as car manufacturer's MPG figures. My van is supposed to do 46mpg it's more like 30. My company car is supposed to get 150 miles per charge. Only once have I managed that.

It is fun watching Bernie get triggered though

 

[bernardgreen]

It is fun watching Bernie get triggered though

What will trigger you to explain the (hi) modifier applied to Intergas efficiency figures.

Of course not....these test houses and the type approval methods are corrupt.

Many are but not all....

(1) Some test houses will test using the method given to them by the client and not question the method.

(2) Some test houses will refuse to test using the method given to then by the client if that method is not how the equipment would be used in real life.

(3) Some test houses will test using the method given to then by the client but then not release the results if the client refuses to agree to provide to their customers the details of the test methods used.

(4) A few test houses will accept from the client a test result and then devise a test method which confirms that the client's required test result is achievable in the test laboratory

 

[fixitflav]

.it just shows your naive. The manufacturers take advantage of you.
Eco nut .....one that can't see the wood from the trees.

There's a lot of unwarranted accusations there. Who's being naive? What makes you think I take their claim seriously? I don't believe it for a minute. But I'd be interested in how they arrive at it, so I can debunk it. I'm the last bloke to worry about a couple of % points on efficiency, even if real.
Also I wouldn't have one of these Nest, Hive, Tado etc things. If it pays for itself in the average user's lifetime I'd be very surprised.

 

[bernardgreen]

But I'd be interested in how they arrive at it, so I can debunk it.

Central Heating....... Load a boiler with a large blown air radiator such the return temperature will be well below the dew point.

Hot Water from combi....... run the hot water at maximum flow for same amount of time as would happen in domestic use, but the test did it in one long draw and not a series of short draws as would happen in normal domestic use.

Other fiddle methods are available.

 

[John D v2.0]

This subject has been discussed at length on this forum.

Probably on this 10 month old thread, and your reply doesn't have much to do with my post! Did you hit the wrong button?

 

[fixitflav]

Probably on this 10 month old thread

10 months sounds about right, but did you mean to insert a link?

your reply doesn't have much to do with my post

I was referring to the fact that if the flue gases are cooled to incoming air temperature the efficiency is still 100% (GCV basis). See my #13. If heat from another source is used to warm incoming air, there's clearly not an honest test.

 

[D_Hailsham]

What will trigger you to explain the (hi) modifier applied to Intergas efficiency figures.

Hi is not a modifier; it the standard way of saying the efficiency is relative to the Net Calorific Value (NCV) of the fuel. Hs is used if the Gross CV is the base point.

All efficiency calculations are done by reference to the NCV as laid down in the Boiler (Efficiency) Regulations 1993, SI 1993/3083, which implements Council Directive 92/42/EEC.

The 127.6% efficiency is obviously a case of double counting, which is picked up in SAP 2009.

 

[bernardgreen]

Hi is not a modifier; it the standard way of saying the efficiency is relative to the Net Calorific Value (NCV)

Intergas refer to (hi) as the "Jaartaprendement" which translates to " annual yield"

 

[D_Hailsham]

Intergas refer to (hi) as the "Jaartaprendement" which translates to " annual yield"

You are misunderstanding what is written "Jaartaprendement (Hi)" is just saying that the annual yield is measured relative to the NCV.

The pic also shows "Jaartaprendement EPN (Hs) 1.10", which means it is measured relative to the Gross CV. (I can't find what EPN stands for.)

The Viessmann Jargon Buster has these two definitions:

Gross calorific value (Hs)
The gross calorific value (Hs) defines the amount of heat released by complete combustion including the evaporation heat latent in the water vapour of the hot gases.

Net calorific value (Hi)
Net calorific value (Hi) refers to the amount of heat released by complete combustion if the resulting water is discharged as steam. The evaporation heat latent in the water vapour of the hot gases is not used.

 

[fixitflav]

The pic also shows "Jaartaprendement EPN (Hs) 1.10", which means it is measured relative to the Gross CV. (I can't find what EPN stands for.)

This link is a Google translation of an Intergas site. EPN is Energy Performance Standard (Norme is German for standard, probably similar in Dutch)
https://translate.google.com/transl...he-specificaties-HRe-cvketels.pdf&prev=search
This site has realistic efficiency claims, some of the sites mention 127%, but too big for Google translate.
Most of us here know the relation between GCV and NCV. That doesn't explain the 127%. If somebody can translate some of the other Intergas stuff we might be able to see how they do it. But for reasons discussed at length, there's some trickery going on.
Somewhere it says basing efficiency on NCV input is the industry standard. OK if everybody uses it, but it's still a bit of a con IMO, when you pay for GCV.

 

[Mottie]

EPN, GCV, NCV, IMO, SAP. WTF?

 

[D_Hailsham]

EPN is Energy Performance Standard (Norme is German for standard, probably similar in Dutch)

It is actually a Dutch standard. The Energy Performance Standard is a method of calculating the integral energy performance of a new house or office and its heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting equipment. This is then compared to a "standard house" to give an Energy Performance Coefficient (EPC); the lower the EPC the better. The EPC is the Dutch equivalent to the UK EPC.

 

[fixitflav]

EPN, GCV, NCV, IMO, SAP. WTF?

TLA

 

[John D v2.0]

10 months sounds about right, but did you mean to insert a link?
.

I was talking about the thread we are posting on now!
Sorry actually it looked like you had randomly bumped this thread by posting that reply but now i can see there was a preceding post that must have thrown it to the top before you responded!