Poor pressure on a megaflo??

[Gasguru]

Unfortunately the patent system has degenerated into a farce. Many patents are issued for very basic designs - many not particularly unique - many not even possible to manufacture. Actually enforcing patent infringement is also very difficult and hugely expensive.

An accumulator is really just an oversized expansion vessel, however its name, application, and slight design differences are considered sufficient to grant it a patent - although there are probably hundreds of patented accumulators they all vary slightly from each other.

Fundamentally it is no different (apart from the medium) than the common hydraulic accumulator. A typical example would be that used for engine protection. To avoid expensive dry sump and oil scavenge systems a simple accumulator is used to provide oil pressure whilst the oil pump is possibly starved during high cornering and braking maneuvers.

Some of the most simple items have been patented - for instance the addition of an overheat thermostat to a boiler - clearly an essential item in virtually all boiler designs and used by all manufactures despite patents existing.

Some boiler manufactures are prolific in their patent applications - and patents are granted for the most trivial items or enhancements.

Consequently many patents are ignored since manufacturing would cease to take place if the patent infringment was truly enforced!

 

[ChrisR]

Well quite. Have had a fair bit to do with patents, all obscure stuff though. I'm reserving judgement on this one but patents which seem to cover too much often don't, err, "hold water".

One silly one I heard about recently a relative (who's an accountant) was working with, involving a glass container of a specific size (for a specific purpose). The company did very well for a while because other companies were afraid to challenge it. They knew that they were on borrowed time and eventually another company did come up with something sllightly different which happened to be usable for the same purpose, and the first company didn't bother to fight on the patent issue. They'd already got the market penetration they were after..

I was told - may be apocryphal, that Ford patented one size of hex key bolt and wrench (musn't say allen key) (7mm?) for their brakes then GM patented another size. Then the Chinese said Borrocks to that, and flooded the market anyway.

It's easy to get a patent then claim to have unique products on the back of it and assert rights and uniqueness in the marketplace, which you don't deserve.
I'm not saying that's what's happening with this squishy water tank and I have no axe to grind, but it sounds suspicious.

 

[simond]

The discussion about the merits of the patent between the Chrises, someone called Gasguru and Agile is interesting, but I detect a degree of bitterness.

My company (HWCH Ltd) are an installer for these products in the South and whilst we have met the inventor (who is a charming ex heating engineer, a vocation presumably shared by yourselves) this is all we are, a specialist installer. It is a small part of of our business which is mainly domestic and commercial oil, gas and LPG work.

My point is that we have found this product to be very useful in solving water flow problems. No off the shelf product existed prior to 1998 to carry out this work, and I can tell from the comments made so far that none of you have fitted one to date.

When the Workmate was patented we all had a timber bench at home; everyone said that they had all thought of it first. But they hadn't designed a fold up unit that was perfectly addressed to the DIY market. Although a major US manufacturer unsuccessfully tried to steal the patent, it went on to sell in its millions. The patent owner rightly profited from the licensing of his intellectual property.

The expansion vessels you have shown were designed for pump spikes and thermal expansion.

Yes, I think the accumulator idea was obvious, sitting here in retrospect. But the fact remains that I, all well as you, didn't think of it for the application relevant to my job. Someone brighter than me did. A major UK company has already tried to break the patent, and failed.

I am humble enough to acknowledge that, some of you seem to have a problem doing the same. The patent office have granted a patent. Look it up, it's online.

Where a patent has been granted, and licence conditions exist, we are all legally required to observe them. Frankly I am bored by people telling me they can make one - I could make a workmate, but what would be the point?



Just for the record Chris Hutt, OSO don't make the accumulators. If you get round to buying one, which I assume you will sooner or later, the manufacturer's address is printed on the side.

I tried to help the original correspondent by suggesting a proven solution. Later in the thread I was accused of being a 'conman' for my trouble, by an imbecile called DIYNOT, who could not understand the basic premise so rubbished the product and myself. This was removed by the moderator from his post. And now some of you guys are retrospectively deconstructing the design and suggesting anyone could have done it.

I think this a poor show.

Why just moan about the accumulator patent? Are you not going to take on the guy that designed and patented the optimum distance between condensing boiler heat exchanger vanes?

After all, it was obvious you want the condense to collect on the heat exchanger by surface tension?

I think inventors of useful solutions should be given credit and allowed to earn a living from their ideas. Have you chaps patented any useful heating solutions recently?

 

[chrishutt]

Bitterness Simon? About what? I've no problem with someone deriving a financial reward for inventive work via the protection of a patent system. However, as has been noted above, the workings of the patent system are far from perfect.

What I question is how the use of any accumulator with any unvented cylinder can be covered by a patent, when both accumulators (albeit known as expansion vessels or surge tanks) and unvented cylinders have been used together for long before your inventor thought to apply for a patent.

It must have been noticed by many people on countless occasions that the accumulator effect compensated for deficiencies in the cold supply pressure and flow, but most would have thought that it was so obvious as to be unworthy of patent protection.

Your inventor may have devised modifications to the basic pressure vessel design to improve its function as an accumulator, for which he should get credit and financial reward. He and GAH are welcome to market the resulting product on its merits, but I cannot see that the use of pressure vessels as accumulators is such a novel or inventive idea as to justify patenting.

So why shouldn't I or anyone else fit an oversized expansion vessel to an unvented cylinder to benefit from the accumulator effect? Admittedly I might have got the idea from the promotional material of GAH, just as I get ideas from all sorts of sources and then apply them inventively.

 

[simond]

Yes, Chris, I can see your argument, but it is commonly applied one to patents, and seldom successful.

Whether you apply things you have read about inventively or otherwise - if you derive commercial benefit, you still have to observe patent laws.

The patent is quite descriptive of the application of the accumulator and its purpose. I would suggest that you satisfy yourself - for your own protection, and that of your paying customer - that you have not broken any IPR by using a larger expansion vessel to improve flow rate rather than purely absorb expansion. I have read the patent in detail and think you will be in breach.

Why don't you just buy the product for the job? That way the inventor gets rewarded for his idea and the customer gets a warranty.

Finally, I would be interested to hear what intellectual property or 'inventiveness' you think you are adding to a documented product.

You describe it as 'inventively', I would call it plagurism.

 

[doitall]

First SimonD we do not appreciate you advertising your Company at every opportunity, it’s against the forum rules for starters.

You obviously have a fixation with accumulators as a one fix cures all, they do not, and yes we have fitted loads of the things, including as a top up vessel on a sick system, which worked very well.

An accumulator works by compressing air as a result of water pressure entering the vessel, to maintain a constant flow, volume and pressure, where the mains volume is insufficient, the pressure would have to be such as to store water at a greater pressure and volume to supply the maximum draw off.

To justify the cost, provided of course you have room for a second cylinder size vessel, the mains pressure needs to be significantly greater than the delivery at the taps, we suggest at least double to gain any real advantage, any pressure, will degrade rapidly unless its replaced, fit a pressure gauge and check for yourself, although I think you know that already.

As I have said at 1.5bar incoming mains pressure, and recommending an accumulator as a solution is ripping the client off, whether you like it or not, the performance will not be improved when used on an un-vented cylinder, whereas on the other hand it would be great for a combi/shower combination.

 

[chrishutt]

I would call it plagurism.

Plagiarism Simon? That's passing off someone else's invention as your own. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm doing that. We all use other people's ideas and inventions in every aspect of our lives. For the most part they all come gratis with our cultural heritage.

As for "what intellectual property or 'inventiveness'" I might think I am adding to a documented product, I don't think I have claimed to be adding any. I was talking more generally about the inventiveness we all use to solve problems.

From a more practical point of view, the GAH accumulator is only available in certain sizes and prices. If for example a vessel of less than 80 litres was required for space reasons, there would be no GAH product available. Furthermore the price of their products is I suspect prohibitive for many applications. Generic vessels are often much cheaper.

 

[Agile]

I know little about patents but I had always thought that it was related to DESIGN features and not useage.

For example a petrol can with an on/off valve has not been made before and is a new design feature and patentable.

Using a standard bucket to carry your wet washing out to put on the clothes line may be a unique use of a bucket but is not a design feature but usage and therefore not patentable.

Tony

 

[simond]

Will someone else explain to this DIYNOT bloke that he is talking cobblers?

At 1.5b standing pressure an accumulator will work just fine on an unvented system. Why he thinks at this standing pressure it will work alright on a combi but not an unvented beats me.

I think he is being economical with the truth about fitting them, because if he had any experience at all, he would know better.

Perhaps he should impart his huge experience and unquestionable technical expartise to the manufacturer, because they have been unaware up until now? They have unwittingly written their installation instructions wrong.

You might fool some of your customers, Mr Doitall, but you don't fool me.

Simon

 

[simond]

Do it All - Just seen your earlier post;

For an accumulator to work satisfactorily it need to store water in excess of at least 50% of the delivery pressure. Ideal for high pressure low volume mains but a complete waste of money with low pressure mains.

The OP would need a standing pressure of at least 4-5bar to run a Megaflow in conjunction with an accumulator, in addition the accumulator would need to be a minimum of 60ltrs or half the volume of the Megaflow, whichever is the greater.

Is this a bloke who has fitted these things?

You are a chancer and you are out of your depth. Why mislead everyone and lie about your experience?

Can't you just admit you don't know, rather than rubbish well intention and informed advice?

 

[doitall]

We have no need to fool our customers simply because unlike you we wouldn't fit one with a low mains pressure.

The minimum pressure required for a megaflow is 1.5bar, the incoming mains is 1.5 bar.

Tell me clever clogs how the accumulator is going to boost the flow/volume

 

[doitall]

Question too difficult for you simonD.

We have 1.5 bar in the cylinder and 1.5 bar in the accumulator, therefore we have a neutral pressure, turn the heat on and the pressure will rise in the cylinder, the accumulator now has an negative pressure until an outlet is opened. For the water to enter the system the cold water combination valve has to be set below the manufacturers minimum (1.5bar).

Bearing in mind that a system pressurized at 1.5bar will only need approximately 5litres of water to raise the pressure 1bar, shall will say you could get another 20 litres of usable water at 1 bar operating pressure.

To enjoy any real benefit as I have said, the mains pressure would need to be at least 2.5-3bar.

They work on a combi/shower setup because the volume of water used is far less than with an unvented/bath installation.

 

[simond]

Easy.

Firstly, the accumulator is usually used as the expansion in the unvented cylinder - although this is just for saving space and unnecessary components. If the accumulator is mounted remotely then sometimes it is cheaper to keep the expansion separate.

In your scenario the pressure in the UV cylinder is 1.5bar until the water starts moving, eg: a draw off.

As soon as the draw off occurs, the pipe inlet restriction would normally come into play by lowering the flow rate (and therefore the operating pressure). If you have 12 litres per min you would know what I mean.

You reckon the pressure equalises and no water comes out of the accumulator. But you are confusing static and operating pressure. Your comments about the Megaflo recharging in earlier posts also display this basic lack of understanding.

The accumulator has stored a large volume of water and the standing pressure has compressed its internal air bag volume. That stored energy in the air bag discharges the accumulated water in the vessel at volume and pressure when an outlet is opened. Whilst the pressure does reduce it is the volume we are primarily interested in. Combi or unvented. That is why your silly challenges over bath fill times would easily be achieved, if someone could be bothered to demonstrate it to you.

If you can't understand this simple physics then there is no more I can do to help you. Have you wondered why the other technically proficient respondents on this forum are all arguing about how simple it is and why it should not be patentable?

You are the only one saying it doesn't work, even though by your own account (one that I do not put any store by, incidentally) you have fitted many.

Why don't you read up on it and stop arguing something that you can never win?

 

[ChrisR]

The patent office have granted a patent. Look it up, it's online.

Where, ££ per page is what I saw??

GAH would NOT sell me one of "their" pressure vessels to add to an existing system, contrary to what you say. I can't remember the words used, but the message I remember was that anyone (or company) who used any pressure vessel with an unvented cylinder was in breach of the patent. Which is clearly not true, but I didn't get any sensible answers thereafter. We need to know what the patent actually says. Do you, SimonD? In which case whay have you not said?

Knowing what I do of the people involved in this discussion, I'm pretty certain that as you say, none of them has fitted one of GAH's devices - hardly surprising. I also know the "accumulated" experience you're decrying is quite wide and deep.

 

[simond]

I agree that the experience is wide and deep. I am pleased to say I have learnt a few new things myself in other parts of this forum, one of them from one of the correspondents in this thread.

But I am annoyed at one individual who has made some rather personal comments. Morover, he says we have been conning the customers for whom we have fitted accumulators, the inference being that they are dissatisfied. Nothing could be further from the truth, like any good product, word travels and we are busier with this product than ever before.

Anyway, back to your question. GAH are the licensees of the patent and their licence with the inventor contains restrictions, these are of course private and confidential. If you wish to view the patent like all registered designs it is in the public domain; You may have to pay a small sum to the patent office to download it - I did a few years back. Copyright permission would be needed to publish it here.

The inventor has chosen to license his IP to a third party who have the marketing and distribution to make the best of it, GAH. The inventor will have set certain conditions to the exploitation of the products using the IPR in his licence.

Therefore the decision on what products can be sold and to whom is subject to the inventors terms and the marketing department of the licensee.

GAH are merely trying to honour the terms they have agreed with the inventor. We have made it our business to do volume sales with GAH and foster a relationship and trust. We observe the restrictions they place on the application of the product.

If the particular set of circumstances you proposed to GAH prevented them from authorising the use of their accumulator, that is a shame.

But they want sales, like any other company, and will sell (via a merchant) to all of us.