Netaheat 10/16E gas valve

[Cooderkey]

You know nothing at all about this particular boiler installation, and you may be generalising, but to cast aspersions on the quality of the work, or the standard or condition of the plumber's electronic equipment is totally uncalled for.

Maybe your engineer failed to explain what the efficiency #s relate to when using a FGA , these boilers were somewhere in the region of around 70% efficient , this was a result of the cast iron heat exchanger coupled with the low CO2 due to shed loads of excess air in POCs.

Thank you for your pleasant response. Well your figure of ' somewhere in the region of 70%,' is a lot better than the 55% that was given out on this forum, by one of the ' experts.' It is also closer to the 78% given in the manufacturer's manual. ( Which is where I extracted my figure from). It appears that everyone is an expert. I can only offer the figures from the manual, and the figures given to me by my gas fitter. He told me that the boiler was quite efficient, and the figure he gave was definitely 80%. I don't know how his very expensive looking bit of kit works, but I assume that some organisation checks his work from time to time. I have an electrician who does work for me from time to time, and I know that his equipment and work are checked and have to pass a set standard. Surely the gas industry has something similar?

You are still missing the point on two issues.

First I believe, without being a***d to check, Agile gave you the 55% figure. This was your first mistake. Ignore this buffoon.

Second, the figure quoted by your fitter is, as others have highlighted, a completely different reading based on something he probably doesn't understand.

To put it closer, but by no means in a definitve manner: Two boilers both running combustion efficiency figures of 90%. Boiler A uses 100Ft3 of gas to heat a jacket of water to 75 degrees. Boiler B uses 1Ft3 to heat a jacket of water to 75 degrees. Which is more efficient?

Search me ? ? But ask Dan if you dare ! ! Also, unaccustomed as I am to this forum, or any other for the matter, I was hoping that everyone concerned realised to which post I was referring. I thought, wrongly, that the bars at the bottom of the page, were the ones to click when answering a post. I am pretty positive that everyone, realised that I was answering the guy that you called ' the buffoon.' Oh Boy, am I glad I didn't upset you too. Best regards, Cooder.

 

[nickso]

Search me ? ? But ask Dan if you dare ! ! Also, unaccustomed as I am to this forum, or any other for the matter, I was hoping that everyone concerned realised to which post I was referring. I thought, wrongly, that the bars at the bottom of the page, were the ones to click when answering a post. I am pretty positive that everyone, realised that I was answering the guy that you called ' the buffoon.' Oh Boy, am I glad I didn't upset you too. Best regards, Cooder.

I sort of knew it was Agile you were referring to but having a had a few dry sherries I couldn't be bothered to check what i thought I had read earlier.

 

[Agile]

To the OP!

You say that you used to be an engineer so you should, if you pause a moment to read and digest, be able to understand a few points relating to the inefficiency of that type of boiler design.

1. Start with a cold boiler, it has to waste gas to heat up a large chunk of iron and a large volume of water inside.

2. The boiler does not modulate so is always running at full power. When it reaches the set flow temperature it has to turn off. Then all that latent heat inside has to disperse partly wasting energy.

3. Once its heated up it can run at a fair efficiency BUT the overall efficiency has to include those losses from on/off modulation.

4. When a boiler is 20 years old the waterways may have significant quantities of scaling. That reduces heat transfer from the combustion gases again reducing efficiency.

5. If that kind of boiler is not PROPERLY serviced then the inside of the boiler becomes coated with rusty deposits which also reduce the efficiency of the heat transfer.

Tony

 

[Cooderkey]

To the OP!

You say that you used to be an engineer so you should, if you pause a moment to read and digest, be able to understand a few points relating to the inefficiency of that type of boiler design.

1. Start with a cold boiler, it has to waste gas to heat up a large chunk of iron and a large volume of water inside.

2. The boiler does not modulate so is always running at full power. When it reaches the set flow temperature it has to turn off. Then all that latent heat inside has to disperse partly wasting energy.

3. Once its heated up it can run at a fair efficiency BUT the overall efficiency has to include those losses from on/off modulation.

4. When a boiler is 20 years old the waterways may have significant quantities of scaling. That reduces heat transfer from the combustion gases again reducing efficiency.

5. If that kind of boiler is not PROPERLY serviced then the inside of the boiler becomes coated with rusty deposits which also reduce the efficiency of the heat transfer.


Quote:-You say that you used to be an engineer so you should, if you pause a moment to read and digest, be able to understand a few points relating to the inefficiency of that type of boiler design.
Tony

Hi Tony, Thank you for your input. I am at the stage now that I do not wish to get involved with any more discussion on this point. If you have read my initial post, I only posted it to give other readers an example of the experience I have had recently with my Potterton Boiler. I did not wish to get into a full blown discussion, or have differences of opinion, with all the gas experts on line, or people asking me why I have resurrected an old thread etc. etc. My input was an entirely innocent statement of my own experience, I quoted stuff from the manual, and what the RGI fitter told me. I thought that if there were any folks out there, looking to see if it was possible to repair an old Potterton Netaheat, I would post my own experience. I am not enjoying the best of health, and having reached the age of 71, it appears that I really should not have posted anything at all. Some of the answers I received upset me, including stuff like:-

quote) if you take offence at comments on what you post then why so tetchy?
What was the point of your post? If you air your views on a public forum, then be prepared to be contradicted. If you don't like contradiction then..................

I don't mind someone making a serious comment, but words like the above paragraph, and also, 'Your plumber is talking through his proverbial,' I do find impolite, and unnecessary. I hope all the folks who responded to my innocent post will REALLY understand why I posted. I wish no one any harm, and try and live by a code that says if you can't be nice to people, then please don't be nasty. I wish we could all meet up over a pint, and have a laugh and a joke, about all that has been said, but until then, I think I would l like to put this stuff to bed, and forget it. May I wish you all, best wishes for the coming festive season, and good luck in all you do in future.
Many thanks,
Cooder.