Fernox or not?

[Johnny B Good]

Some of you may remember my saga with the Honeywell V4073A1062 zone
valve. Well, fear not, all I have to say about that is that I've
successfully finshed said repair, and more economically than I was
expecting considering that I had to use the upgrade kit *and* purchase a
new control head.

This now brings me to the expense (or not) of flushing out and refilling
the system with a suitable mix of corrosion inhibitor. If I choose to use
Fernox MB1 as I've done on previous occasions, it's going to cost well
more than the 45 quid I spent on parts (and that's excluding the flushing/
cleaning additive cost).

I figure my system must have a 50% larger capacity than the typical
ballpark figure of 100 litres oft quoted for a 10 rad 3 bedroomed semi-
detached property so will need to buy a couple of 4 litre packs of Fernox
to properly dose the system with.

ISTR seeing 4 litre packs of MB1 at a reduced price circa 27 quid or so
somewhere on the internet a day or two back. Looking at the Plumb Centre
web site, I see it priced at a whopping £54.37!!! a far cry from the
price of the products sold in Toolstation around the 7 or 8 quid mark for
a 1 litre quantity required to dose the eponymous 100 litre 10 rad system
(MB1 uses a 4% dilution hence their 4 litre pack size).

The 7 to 1 price differential does rather beg the question as to whether
or not the quality of the Fernox products can be 7 times or more greater
than that of "The Cheap Stuff"(tm). There surely can't be *that* much
disparity between these products, can there?

Anyhow, as I'd previously mentioned. on the two recent occasions when
I'd part drained the system down to deal with the 3 port valve, the water
exited the ground floor drain port looking crystal clear (it might be a
different story when it comes to a complete drain down involving buckets
in the basement). Enquiring at the Plumb Centre counter suggests this is
no bad thing.

I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the prior
use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old system
still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any regular annual
maintenance work in all of that time.

As far as I can recall, the last time I flushed the system out and re-
dosed it with MB1 must be a good 10 years ago when I replaced the pump
where I was forced to do a part drain down in order to replace the
isolator valves which had started leaking at the spindle glands.

Unfortunately, the only definite clue I have is that I dosed the system
back in 1998 or so according to the labels I tied to the pipework by the
boiler and in the airing cupboard, I find it hard to believe that this
*was* actually the last time I treated the system (but it's a
possibility).

Bearing all that in mind, does anyone have any sage advice to offer in
regard of product recommendations?

--
Johnny B Good

[Capitol]

With a similar boiler I have never added inhibitor to the water. I have
had one rad fail in ?40 yrs, which cost a lot less to replace than the
Fernox! The fact that the system is drained down every few years for
modifications may be helping. The system has been filled with softened
water for the last 35 years.

[Johnny B Good]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:48:30 +0100, Capitol wrote:

> Johnny B Good wrote:

====snip====

Thanks for the speedy response. In view of the fact that the plumbing is
the usual inevitable mix of steel and copper, I'm not so sure that it's a
good idea to forego any corrosion inhibitor, especially as the intervals
between full drain downs/ refills tend to be of the order of a decade or
so.

I do feel that the use of inhibitor is a necessary requirement to stave
off corrosion problems (hopefully for several more decades yet). Whilst
the replacement cost for a single radiator pales compared to the cost of
just a single 4 litre pack of MB1, one might well wonder how much longer
the remaining rads might survive when that single rad failure may just
have been the harbinger of doom for the rest of your 'fleet'.

I'm going to dose the system with some form of inhibitor, the only
question is which brand? From your experience with a similar setup, I'm
feeling even more inclined to use the cheap stuff. The pricing model for
Fernox product smacks just too much of the one used by the infamous Russ
Andrews of hyperpriced audio products fame for my liking.

--
Johnny B Good

[harry]

New radiators are much thinner than in days of yore so pinholes appear sooner.
So if you have new rads then you need to go for it.
If you have an aluminium boiler you need it.
The stuff is not all the same, the stuff for systems with exotic metals (eg aluminium boilers) costs more.
If there's no exotic metals, I would go for the cheap stuff.

[TheChief]

Johnny B Good <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> Wrote in message:

Having used fernox and its nearest competitor sentinel, I would
pay the money for fernox every day of the week. If the amount of
boiler noise reduction is any indicator, then its certainly worth
the money.
Phil
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[DerbyBorn]

Just remembered - I put some cleaner in a few months ago. I had better do a
flush and put in some inhibitor.

[David]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:48:30 +0100, Capitol wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Bearing all that in mind, does anyone have any sage advice to offer
>> in
>> regard of product recommendations?
>>
>>
> With a similar boiler I have never added inhibitor to the water. I
have
> had one rad fail in ?40 yrs, which cost a lot less to replace than the
> Fernox! The fact that the system is drained down every few years for
> modifications may be helping. The system has been filled with softened
> water for the last 35 years.

Combi boiler warning - the manual for our Worcester Bosch very clearly
states that softened water must not be used to fill the central heating
side.

I assume this is to do with the sodium ions and the aluminium.

Cheers

Dave R


--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

[Fredxxx]

And presumably an aluminium heat exchanger.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <BGgqx.145069$bD4.1...@fx11.am4>,

Johnny B Good <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the
> prior use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old
> system still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any
> regular annual maintenance work in all of that time.

My system was basically installed in the '70s. But has had a boiler
change, and at the same time changed from open to sealed.

I have always used Fernox. All the rads are original. I've several friends
living locally who've had to change rads which have rusted through.

When I changed the boiler, the instructions went on about a 'proper' clean
and flush. But at drain down time with the old, the water came out pretty
clear - not the black stuff you so often see. So I just flushed it with
clean water.

The new boiler was fitted about 8 years ago. No problems with sludge or
whatever.

So I personally consider Fernox worth the cost. No idea if there is a
cheaper as good alternative.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Fredxxx]

On 18/07/2015 01:00, Johnny B Good wrote:

<snip>

> ISTR seeing 4 litre packs of MB1 at a reduced price circa 27 quid or so
> somewhere on the internet a day or two back. Looking at the Plumb Centre
> web site, I see it priced at a whopping £54.37!!! a far cry from the
> price of the products sold in Toolstation around the 7 or 8 quid mark for
> a 1 litre quantity required to dose the eponymous 100 litre 10 rad system
> (MB1 uses a 4% dilution hence their 4 litre pack size).
>
> The 7 to 1 price differential does rather beg the question as to whether
> or not the quality of the Fernox products can be 7 times or more greater
> than that of "The Cheap Stuff"(tm). There surely can't be *that* much
> disparity between these products, can there?

I've often wonder what the active ingredient(s) are in these inhibitors!
I'm sure the raw material would be cheaper on ebay!

I recall some instructions where you drew off some fluid every so often
into a jam jar and placed some bare nails in the fluid and replaced the lid.

If after a few days there was rust you needed to top up the inhibitor,
otherwise all was well.

[Johnny B Good]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:22:46 +0100, TheChief wrote:

> Johnny B Good <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> Wrote in message:

====snip====

>> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
>> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
>> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the
>> prior use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old
>> system still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any
>> regular annual maintenance work in all of that time.
>>
>> As far as I can recall, the last time I flushed the system out and re-
>> dosed it with MB1 must be a good 10 years ago when I replaced the pump
>> where I was forced to do a part drain down in order to replace the
>> isolator valves which had started leaking at the spindle glands.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the only definite clue I have is that I dosed the
>> system
>> back in 1998 or so according to the labels I tied to the pipework by
>> the boiler and in the airing cupboard, I find it hard to believe that
>> this *was* actually the last time I treated the system (but it's a
>> possibility).
>>
>> Bearing all that in mind, does anyone have any sage advice to offer in
>> regard of product recommendations?
>>
>> --
>> Johnny B Good
>>
>>
> Having used fernox and its nearest competitor sentinel, I would
> pay the money for fernox every day of the week. If the amount of
> boiler noise reduction is any indicator, then its certainly worth the
> money.

Thanks, Phil.

Whilst the strength of the MB1 inhibitor is at an all time low, I'll run
the system up to maximum demand and take a closer listen to the boiler
for any signs of kettling.

I suspect the greater pressure in the boiler helps to suppress such
symptoms. It's in the basement at the lowest point of a rather extensive
plumbing circuit that reaches up to a second floor set of radiators. I
reckon nearly twice the pressure of vented systems installed into a
typical two floor semi.

The pump, located as it is in an upstairs airing cupboard, is probably
seeing only half that pressure so is another candidate worth monitoring
for cavitation noise. That's remained almost totally silent in operation
ever since it was installed about a decade ago.

Obviously, I'll be doing further testing with unadulterated 'tap water'
which will provide me with a benchmark by which to decide whether or not
Fernox MB1's kettling noise reduction feature[1] is likely to be in any
way useful.

[1] And, likewise for any competitor products I may choose.

--
Johnny B Good

[Johnny B Good]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:20:42 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

> Just remembered - I put some cleaner in a few months ago. I had better
> do a flush and put in some inhibitor.

Glad to be of service! :-)


--
Johnny B Good

[TheChief]

Hi JBG
My reference to boiler noise suppression was that I used Fernox
performance at this as an indicator of its general effectiveness
and hopefully also as an indicator of superiority over other
products. Whether I have boiler noise or not that is the product
I would always use. Rather like Dow Corning 785 sealant for
sanitary work - can't be beaten IMHO.

[Johnny B Good]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:17:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <BGgqx.145069$bD4.1...@fx11.am4>,
> Johnny B Good <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
>> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
>> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the
>> prior use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old
>> system still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any
>> regular annual maintenance work in all of that time.
>
> My system was basically installed in the '70s. But has had a boiler
> change, and at the same time changed from open to sealed.
>
> I have always used Fernox. All the rads are original. I've several
> friends living locally who've had to change rads which have rusted
> through.
>
> When I changed the boiler, the instructions went on about a 'proper'
> clean and flush. But at drain down time with the old, the water came out
> pretty clear - not the black stuff you so often see. So I just flushed
> it with clean water.
>
> The new boiler was fitted about 8 years ago. No problems with sludge or
> whatever.
>
> So I personally consider Fernox worth the cost. No idea if there is a
> cheaper as good alternative.

I've only ever used Fernox myself which, going by own experience and
postings I've seen in this news group about CH problems, suggests that it
just *might* be an extremely effective product indeed!

Otoh, it may be no more effective than any of the cheaper brands for all
I know, having as it were, no experience whatsoever of those cheaper
brands, the very existence of which, all rather begs the question as to
whether or not the expense of Fernox product really *is* justified.

Right now, I'm really non the wiser.

--
Johnny B Good

[Johnny B Good]

Yes, I saw that very same advice quite recently in this NG. However, all
that can really reveal is how effectively the dissolved oxygen content
has been removed from the water/inhibitor mix which may not necessarily
be the only or major protection mechanism against corrosion in a mixed
materials plumbing system (essentially steel and copper components with a
bit of brass and cast iron thrown in for good measure).

Having said all that, this may still be a reasonable indication of
overall strength of the whole cocktail of inhibitants used in the
inhibitor's formulation. I suppose *some* indication is better than no
indication at all.

Better still would be if the maker of the corrosion inhibitor is able to
supply a cheap testing kit to verify the efficacy of the water/inhibitor
mix. Do any of them provide such testing kits?

--
Johnny B Good

[Charles F]

"Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_1xqx.4173$E%3....@fx30.am4...

Yes, but not cheap - see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/diy/dp/B00Q1UZTQI

Having said that, I've got a pot of test strips that are way out of date,
but still appears to be working fine. My system fernox mix tests OK, and
measuring a quite diluted mix does show that the concentration is low.

So although they are expensive you do have them for quite a while.

Charles F

[Johnny B Good]

Ouch! £37.31 for a tub of 50 test strips! At that price that aught to be
a lifetime's supply for a young married (at age 18) couple planning on
passing them onto to their grandchildren.

Still, I suppose you could delay their purchase for the decade it'll
take to get over the shock of the initial purchase of a couple of 4 litre
packs of MB1. After all, if Fernox is *so* much better than 'The Cheap
Stuff' as implied by the price differential, it's going to take at least
a decade before there's the slightest worry over the efficacy of the
initial dosing. :-)

Thereafter, assuming the 10 year test shows little deterioration, you
can shorten the interval to 5 years until it finally starts to show that
it's time to take out another loan for a fresh pack or two of 'The Good
Stuff' and start the cycle over again.

Assuming a conservative 20 year lifetime for the MB1, that tub of test
strips should last, let's see now... 330 years! That seems a massive
level of 'provisioning overkill' to me but I'm guessing Fernox's target
customer in this case is your 'jobbing' CH engineer.

I suppose if you can't persuade your local friendly jobbing CH engineer
to sell you a 'pack of ten' for a tenner, you could always try getting
another four households to form a purchasing syndicate with you (10
strips each should be good for 70 years' worth of monitoring I reckon).
Mind you, this only works out if the durability of the Fernox treatment
can match its price promise.

The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
recycling (two in the case of the oft quoted 100 litre 10 rad example
system, or in my case, three!).

There's one big plus point in favour of using the cheaper stuff, even if
it works out just as expensive in the longer run, you won't be worrying
about where you're going to acquire a pair or three of 55 litre drums
from. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[PeterC]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:17:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <BGgqx.145069$bD4.1...@fx11.am4>,
> Johnny B Good <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
>> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
>> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the
>> prior use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old
>> system still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any
>> regular annual maintenance work in all of that time.
>
> My system was basically installed in the '70s. But has had a boiler
> change, and at the same time changed from open to sealed.
>
> I have always used Fernox. All the rads are original. I've several friends
> living locally who've had to change rads which have rusted through.
>
> When I changed the boiler, the instructions went on about a 'proper' clean
> and flush. But at drain down time with the old, the water came out pretty
> clear - not the black stuff you so often see. So I just flushed it with
> clean water.
>
> The new boiler was fitted about 8 years ago. No problems with sludge or
> whatever.
>
> So I personally consider Fernox worth the cost. No idea if there is a
> cheaper as good alternative.

I'm using CalChem and it seems to work
http://www.toolstation.com/shop/p45091

More details and other treatments at
http://www.calmagltd.com/index.php/our-products/chemical-range/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[Johnny B Good]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:10:54 +0000, Johnny B Good wrote:

CORRECTION!

>
> The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
> that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
> works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
> recycling (two in the case of the oft quoted 100 litre 10 rad example
> system, or in my case, three!).

The figure "55" which I used is a reference to the classic 55 GALLON
drum size which, to my surprise isn't *just* an approximation to 250
litres, it *is* 250 litres (well, using the 1 gallon equals 4.5454545
litres conversion factor on my eight digit calculator actually gave the
answer 249.99999)! Which correction requires the following to read thus:

>
> There's one big plus point in favour of using the cheaper stuff, even
>if it works out just as expensive in the longer run, you won't be

>worrying about where you're going to acquire a 55 gallon (250 litre)
>drum from. :-)


--
Johnny B Good

[ARW]

"Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:fMPqx.169929$bD4....@fx11.am4...

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:10:54 +0000, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
> CORRECTION!
>>
>> The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
>> that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
>> works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
>> recycling (two in the case of the oft quoted 100 litre 10 rad example
>> system, or in my case, three!).
>
> The figure "55" which I used is a reference to the classic 55 GALLON
> drum size which, to my surprise isn't *just* an approximation to 250
> litres, it *is* 250 litres (well, using the 1 gallon equals 4.5454545
> litres conversion factor on my eight digit calculator actually gave the
> answer 249.99999)! Which correction requires the following to read thus:
>

4.545454... is exactly 50/11



--
Adam

[Vir Campestris]

On 19/07/2015 16:55, Johnny B Good wrote:
> well, using the 1 gallon equals 4.5454545
> litres conversion factor on my eight digit calculator actually gave the
> answer 249.99999

Google think 4.54609. I thought it was 4.5359237, assuming a gallon is
10lbs...

Andy

[Charles Hope]

In article <v7mdnSQzkv6tkTHI...@brightview.co.uk>,

Google gives the same as my BBC Metric Pocket book - and a gallon of water
does weigh 10lb

[Johnny B Good]

In view of your email address, I'm obliged to ask, "Is that in the
context of your own home CH system, or from longer term results in
systems you've worked on?

I did spot this, along with all the other, similarly cheap (compared to
Fernox) Corgi and Qual-Rad products, last week - indeed, the very reason
for my starting this thread.

>
> More details and other treatments at
> http://www.calmagltd.com/index.php/our-products/chemical-range/

That has got to be one of the most "Content Free" web sites I've seen in
quite a while. :-(

Trying to find 'product information' was a complete waste of time (why
no pdf copies of the instructions and legal notices they're obliged to
supply with the product packaging?). I gave up after some 20 or 30
minutes trying to hack my way through to some meaningful information on
their CH additive products.

However, I did manage to track down the safety data sheets on the
ChalChem and Corgi inhibitors via toolstation's 'more information" links
which made for interesting reading, particularly the more comprehensive
(and particularly interesting) by a country mile, CalChem one.

According to my water supplier, the water is classed as "Soft" with a
Hardness Clarke value of 7.175 (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean
- yet more googling alas!). A quick google did indeed return a pdf
explaining this... from my water supplier's web site of all places!

The soft water might explain why the MB1 treatment[1] I gave the system
way back in November 1994 seems to have kept the system in such good
shape ever since[2]!


[1] I definitely dosed the system with 6 litres back in November 1994
and, a far as I can figure it, must have done a further top up using 1
1/2 litres of the last 2 litres I had left over[3] when pump isolator
problems forced me to do a partial drain down about ten years ago.

[2] I can't believe I would have neglected to apply another Fernox
treatment when that pump replacement job took place so long after the
1994 dosing but, looking at the 500mL or so of pale yellow liquid with
some yellowish needle like crystals washing around the bottom of the 4
litre container[3] I'd left alongside of the empty MB1 box (missing the
tear off label strip) which I've just found next to the header tank, I
think I may have elected to simply use up all bar a half litre's worth to
dose the header tank with. Perhaps I'd intended to buy another 4 litres
to bring it back to full strength again but simply forgot.

[3] I think this must have been the final half litre intended to dose the
header tank with - obviously a job waiting for another round tuit to
materialise. In view of the condition of a test sample drawn from the
boiler drain cock (lowest part of the circuit), I'm inclined to simply
top up with another 4 litre pack of MB1 from ScrewFix (at a slightly less
eye-watering £29.99) and have done with it.

--
Johnny B Good

[Johnny B Good]

Well, I've always had the conversion value of 4.54 recurring in my mind.
A quick comparison between google's value and 'mine' shows less than a
0.014% disagreement, close enough for all but the most exacting demands
on accuracy imo. :-)

Anyway, that wasn't the point. I was just correcting my conflating
gallons with litres when I mentioned the "55 litre drum". Correcting it
to gallons had me wondering what the closest size in litres would be for
a metricated "55 gallon drum". Answer, a rather precise 250 litres if you
accept the 0.014% discrepancy (a 35ml shortfall).


--
Johnny B Good

[PeterC]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:42:19 GMT, Johnny B Good wrote:

>> I'm using CalChem and it seems to work
>> http://www.toolstation.com/shop/p45091
>
> In view of your email address, I'm obliged to ask, "Is that in the
> context of your own home CH system, or from longer term results in
> systems you've worked on?
>

My own system at home. Why did you think it might be professional?

> I did spot this, along with all the other, similarly cheap (compared to
> Fernox) Corgi and Qual-Rad products, last week - indeed, the very reason
> for my starting this thread.
>
>>
>> More details and other treatments at
>> http://www.calmagltd.com/index.php/our-products/chemical-range/
>
> That has got to be one of the most "Content Free" web sites I've seen in
> quite a while. :-(
>
> Trying to find 'product information' was a complete waste of time (why
> no pdf copies of the instructions and legal notices they're obliged to
> supply with the product packaging?). I gave up after some 20 or 30
> minutes trying to hack my way through to some meaningful information on
> their CH additive products.

The site changed since I first looked about 3 years ago. CalChem does have a
Safety (Danger, really) sheet but the couple of others that I checked don't.
I do have a PDF of the instructions for CalChem, 95kB if you'd like a copy.

[Andy Burns]

PeterC wrote:

> Why did you think it might be professional?

Possibly confusing homecall with the BG's homecare?

[RobertL]

which is very convenient and easy to remember.

Another convenient match is that 1 metric tonne = 1 imperial ton to 1.6% accuracy.



Robert

[John Rumm]

On 7/18/2015 1:00 AM, Johnny B Good wrote:

> This now brings me to the expense (or not) of flushing out and refilling
> the system with a suitable mix of corrosion inhibitor. If I choose to use
> Fernox MB1 as I've done on previous occasions, it's going to cost well
> more than the 45 quid I spent on parts (and that's excluding the flushing/
> cleaning additive cost).
>
> I figure my system must have a 50% larger capacity than the typical
> ballpark figure of 100 litres oft quoted for a 10 rad 3 bedroomed semi-
> detached property so will need to buy a couple of 4 litre packs of Fernox
> to properly dose the system with.

Its interesting that Fernox require a greater concentration than other
inhibitors (4% vs say the 1% recommended for Sentinal X100)

> ISTR seeing 4 litre packs of MB1 at a reduced price circa 27 quid or so
> somewhere on the internet a day or two back. Looking at the Plumb Centre
> web site, I see it priced at a whopping £54.37!!! a far cry from the
> price of the products sold in Toolstation around the 7 or 8 quid mark for
> a 1 litre quantity required to dose the eponymous 100 litre 10 rad system
> (MB1 uses a 4% dilution hence their 4 litre pack size).
>
> The 7 to 1 price differential does rather beg the question as to whether
> or not the quality of the Fernox products can be 7 times or more greater
> than that of "The Cheap Stuff"(tm). There surely can't be *that* much
> disparity between these products, can there?

I can only give you an anecdotal answer... about three years ago I
converted my vented system to sealed, did a complete mains water flush
of my whole system (21 rads), then treated with 2L of X100. I fitted a
Fernox TF1 magnetic/cyclonic filter at the same time. Since then, the
filter has collected in total around a desert spoon's full of "stuff" -
mainly magnetite. I added another litre of X100 recently as a top up.

So it does seem to be effective in my system so far.

keep in mind this is what was coming out of the system previously:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=File:DirtyFlushWater.jpg

TMMV and all that...

> Anyhow, as I'd previously mentioned. on the two recent occasions when
> I'd part drained the system down to deal with the 3 port valve, the water
> exited the ground floor drain port looking crystal clear (it might be a
> different story when it comes to a complete drain down involving buckets
> in the basement). Enquiring at the Plumb Centre counter suggests this is
> no bad thing.
>

> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the prior
> use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old system
> still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any regular annual
> maintenance work in all of that time.

We used to have a Mexico. I did not get rad cold spots etc, but the
boiler did kettle, and needed treatment every other year with a noise
reducer. I don't know how often if ever the system had been treated
prior to my ownership, but it was obviously not spotless as the above
pic will attest!

> As far as I can recall, the last time I flushed the system out and re-
> dosed it with MB1 must be a good 10 years ago when I replaced the pump
> where I was forced to do a part drain down in order to replace the
> isolator valves which had started leaking at the spindle glands.
>
> Unfortunately, the only definite clue I have is that I dosed the system
> back in 1998 or so according to the labels I tied to the pipework by the
> boiler and in the airing cupboard, I find it hard to believe that this
> *was* actually the last time I treated the system (but it's a
> possibility).
>
> Bearing all that in mind, does anyone have any sage advice to offer in
> regard of product recommendations?

Only yes use some - preferably a recognised brand. Not sure if the cost
difference between MB1 and say X100 is really justified - but it may
well be.

If it were just down to O2 induced corrosion, then they are probably
comparable:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Inhibitor

However, as you said, the full story is a tad more complicated.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Johnny B Good]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:54:44 +0100, PeterC wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:42:19 GMT, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
>>> I'm using CalChem and it seems to work
>>> http://www.toolstation.com/shop/p45091
>>
>> In view of your email address, I'm obliged to ask, "Is that in the
>> context of your own home CH system, or from longer term results in
>> systems you've worked on?
>>
> My own system at home. Why did you think it might be professional?

Andy Burns' explanation is on the right track. It wasn't a direct
confusion with BG's homecare as such, more the case that Istr seeing a
company with the name "Homecall" (or else as a part of their business
name). I just "Put Two and Two Together and got Five." (an easy enough
error to arrive at when using 'large values of Two' :-).

I just thought it best to ask for clarification on what I thought could
be a possible source of 'conflicting interests'.

>
>> I did spot this, along with all the other, similarly cheap (compared
>> to
>> Fernox) Corgi and Qual-Rad products, last week - indeed, the very
>> reason for my starting this thread.
>>
>>
>>> More details and other treatments at
>>> http://www.calmagltd.com/index.php/our-products/chemical-range/
>>
>> That has got to be one of the most "Content Free" web sites I've seen
>> in
>> quite a while. :-(
>>
>> Trying to find 'product information' was a complete waste of time (why
>> no pdf copies of the instructions and legal notices they're obliged to
>> supply with the product packaging?). I gave up after some 20 or 30
>> minutes trying to hack my way through to some meaningful information on
>> their CH additive products.
>
> The site changed since I first looked about 3 years ago. CalChem does
> have a Safety (Danger, really) sheet but the couple of others that I
> checked don't.
> I do have a PDF of the instructions for CalChem, 95kB if you'd like a
> copy.

I've already got an SDS pdf (109.5KiB) of their Cal-Mag branded Central
Heating Cleanser / Descaler & Inhibitor. It's no more 'interesting' than
the Corgi Corrosion inhibitor safety data sheet (the Qual-Rad Corrosion
inhibitor safety data sheet, otoh, now that's a *really* 'interesting'
read - all 561.7KiB's worth of it!).

If you can post a link to the user instructions I'll take a look,
otherwise don't bother. It's not that important to me any more.

In view of Fernox's apparent efficacy in my own system these past two
decades (and no definite consensus of opinion either way), I'm now
inclined to simply top up with another 4 litre refreshing dose rather
than go through the routine of flushing what remains completely out of
the system in order to use a cheaper brand of flushing/cleansing
treatment plus a fresh charge of inhibitor.

The size of my own system being larger than the eponymous 10 to 12 rad
100 litre 3/4 bedroom semi-detached CH system oft quoted to justify
either a 1% or (in Fernox's case, 4%) solution requiring a 1 litre (or 4
litre) dosing means I need to double up the quantities to deal with a
system that, at a conservative estimate must have around 150 litres of
capacity.

You can't buy 1.5 or 6 litres of cheap or Fernox inhibitor, it's either
2 or 8 litres. Since my system already has about the equivilent of a
litre or two's worth of Fernox MB1 remaining and appears not to be in
need of a good flushing/cleansing out, I reckon just a single 4 litre
pack at a slightly less eye-watering £29.99 from my local Screwfix will
just nicely finish the job.

If I were to choose to use Qual-Rad's cleanser (2 litres) followed up
with their inhibitor (2 litres), that would cost me £25.68 in total from
Toolstation. If I go the Corgi (concentrate) route it would cost £28.86,
also from Toolstation. The Cal-Chem 3 in 1 system protector, otoh, works
out the cheapest at just £18.94 for the couple of 1 litre bottles
required to treat my system.

At best, I'd only be saving 11 quid but adding one hell of a lot of
effort running up and down between 3 to 4 floor levels draining and
refilling to flush out the old Fernox mixture to ready it for the change
of chemistry along with all the necessary opening and shutting of
radiator valves this involves.

On considered reflection (I'm not in good enough shape for such a
marathon of effort if truth be told), I think I'll bite the bullet on the
additional expense of Fernox MB1. In retrospect, the extra 1 to 11 quid
price premium now seems like a small price to pay to avoid all of that
questionable exercise.

I think I'll just have done with it and dose, top up/bleed the system
and keep my eyes open for a 100 litre and a 50 litre container as
insurance against any early drain down events.

--
Johnny B Good

[Johnny B Good]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:21:12 +0100, Charles Hope wrote:

Indeed it does! A cubic foot of water approximates to 62 1/2 Lbs for
that very reason.

I suppose the 4.5359237 figure depends on which conversion factor you
use (2.2Lbs to the Kilo or 28.3g to the ounce or perhaps yet another
conversion factor). Let's see now... Aha! That 4.54 recurring figure is
the result using the 2.2k to the pound conversion factor tied to the 10
Lbs of water in a gallon 'constant'. :-)

Let's try the 28.3g to the ounce method... That just gets a value of
4.528 litres to the gallon, an even less accurate approximation. I knew
the 2.2 Lb to the kilo was a pretty accurate approximation considering
the use of just two significant digits but I wouldn't have expected an
even larger discrepancy from a 3 digit approximation.

Still and all, that just demonstrates the randomness of accuracy you can
get using rounding with such conversions. I'll just keep in mind that the
28.3 grammes to the ounce figure isn't quite so well suited to dealing
with litre/gallon conversions and metric tonnes / imperial tons
quantities as the 2.2 Lb to the Kilogramme conversion factor. However,
it's good enough to let me appreciate that the once traditional 1 ounce
pouch of tobacco is now some 11.7% lighter in its metric form of 25
grammes - no bad thing, healthwise, I suppose. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[PeterC]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:07:11 GMT, Johnny B Good wrote:

>>> Trying to find 'product information' was a complete waste of time (why
>>> no pdf copies of the instructions and legal notices they're obliged to
>>> supply with the product packaging?). I gave up after some 20 or 30
>>> minutes trying to hack my way through to some meaningful information on
>>> their CH additive products.
>>
>> The site changed since I first looked about 3 years ago. CalChem does
>> have a Safety (Danger, really) sheet but the couple of others that I
>> checked don't.
>> I do have a PDF of the instructions for CalChem, 95kB if you'd like a
>> copy.
>
> I've already got an SDS pdf (109.5KiB) of their Cal-Mag branded Central
> Heating Cleanser / Descaler & Inhibitor. It's no more 'interesting' than
> the Corgi Corrosion inhibitor safety data sheet (the Qual-Rad Corrosion
> inhibitor safety data sheet, otoh, now that's a *really* 'interesting'
> read - all 561.7KiB's worth of it!).
>
> If you can post a link to the user instructions I'll take a look,
> otherwise don't bother. It's not that important to me any more.

Sorry, no. I just can't find a link at all and can't remember where I got
it.
There's a bit of info here (and also the same regurgitated on many other
sites:
http://www.heatingsparescentre.co.uk/uncategorised-c2965/calmag-calchem-3-in-1-leave-in-total-system-protection-1-litre-p24078

[Vir Campestris]

On 20/07/2015 15:39, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
> I suppose the 4.5359237 figure depends on which conversion factor you
> use (2.2Lbs to the Kilo or 28.3g to the ounce or perhaps yet another
> conversion factor). Let's see now... Aha! That 4.54 recurring figure is
> the result using the 2.2k to the pound conversion factor tied to the 10
> Lbs of water in a gallon 'constant'. :-)
>
> Let's try the 28.3g to the ounce method... That just gets a value of
> 4.528 litres to the gallon, an even less accurate approximation. I knew
> the 2.2 Lb to the kilo was a pretty accurate approximation considering
> the use of just two significant digits but I wouldn't have expected an
> even larger discrepancy from a 3 digit approximation.

Wikipedia says an ounce is 28.349523125 grams.

Which appears to be derived from the pound -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29>
" the most common today being the international avoirdupois pound which
is legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms"

That's the number I remember. Yes, really!

<fx googles> Ah the Imperial gallon is at 62F, ~17C. The litre _was_
water at 0C.

Andy

[Johnny B Good]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:49:00 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

> On 7/18/2015 1:00 AM, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
>> This now brings me to the expense (or not) of flushing out and
>> refilling
>> the system with a suitable mix of corrosion inhibitor. If I choose to
>> use Fernox MB1 as I've done on previous occasions, it's going to cost
>> well more than the 45 quid I spent on parts (and that's excluding the
>> flushing/
>> cleaning additive cost).
>>
>> I figure my system must have a 50% larger capacity than the typical
>> ballpark figure of 100 litres oft quoted for a 10 rad 3 bedroomed semi-
>> detached property so will need to buy a couple of 4 litre packs of
>> Fernox to properly dose the system with.
>
> Its interesting that Fernox require a greater concentration than other
> inhibitors (4% vs say the 1% recommended for Sentinal X100)

I noticed that too, although their F1 product is supplied in a more
concentrated form. This may simply mean they're offering a fourfold extra
dosing at the same maximum concentration limit as the others, effectively
forcing you into creating a full strength mix which will outlast the
competitors' offerings thus gaining a "Reputation for Quality" that
despite its potential to outlast 4 or 5 dosings worth of the cheaper
stuff, stands a very good chance of being chucked down the drain in the
event of any maintenance tasks requiring partial or full drain downs
frequently enough for them to make an overall gain in profitability.

However, if that's the case, they didn't reckon against my (admittedly
new) policy of collecting any such valuable water/inhibitor mix in a 100
and a 50 litre drum to be recycled in the event of such frequency of
drain downs. :-)

>
>> ISTR seeing 4 litre packs of MB1 at a reduced price circa 27 quid or
>> so
>> somewhere on the internet a day or two back. Looking at the Plumb
>> Centre web site, I see it priced at a whopping £54.37!!! a far cry from
>> the price of the products sold in Toolstation around the 7 or 8 quid
>> mark for a 1 litre quantity required to dose the eponymous 100 litre 10
>> rad system (MB1 uses a 4% dilution hence their 4 litre pack size).
>>
>> The 7 to 1 price differential does rather beg the question as to
>> whether
>> or not the quality of the Fernox products can be 7 times or more
>> greater than that of "The Cheap Stuff"(tm). There surely can't be
>> *that* much disparity between these products, can there?
>
> I can only give you an anecdotal answer... about three years ago I
> converted my vented system to sealed, did a complete mains water flush
> of my whole system (21 rads), then treated with 2L of X100. I fitted a
> Fernox TF1 magnetic/cyclonic filter at the same time. Since then, the
> filter has collected in total around a desert spoon's full of "stuff" -
> mainly magnetite. I added another litre of X100 recently as a top up.
>
> So it does seem to be effective in my system so far.
>
> keep in mind this is what was coming out of the system previously:
>
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=File:DirtyFlushWater.jpg
>
> TMMV and all that...

Ok, anecdotal evidence seems to be the only type available, if it's well
considered anecdotal evidence as yours seems to be, it's a damn sight
better than no evidence at all, or worse still, manufacturers' claims.

I did eventually have a google for reviews on the effectiveness of CH
inhibitors, something I could have done beforehand although it wouldn't
have saved me the need to pose the question as it turned out.

As well as an earlier uk.d-i-y discussion on the subject about 8 years
ago, I came across a few web forum discussions which, like the uk,d-i-y
one, failed to come to any obvious conclusion regarding a "Best Product
Choice" although Fernox and Sentinel both seemed to be highly regarded.

>
>> Anyhow, as I'd previously mentioned. on the two recent occasions when
>> I'd part drained the system down to deal with the 3 port valve, the
>> water exited the ground floor drain port looking crystal clear (it
>> might be a different story when it comes to a complete drain down
>> involving buckets in the basement). Enquiring at the Plumb Centre
>> counter suggests this is no bad thing.

I actually got around to taking a sample from the boiler drain port
(lowest part of the system) late last night and it was only the first few
cc which splashed onto the concrete floor that looked as black as your
picture showed.

I was using a pint glass and the first half pint after that showed a
murky yellow liquid with just a thin layer of black particles at the
bottom of the glass. The second sampling was a lot less murkier and paler.

I've transferred this to a resealable glass jar with some wirewooled/
degreased nails and a penny coin chucked in by way of a test of the
inhibitor strength. It's sat on a shelf in the basement alongside a small
glass of tap water with nails and a coin by way of a 'Control'.

Obviously with a test like this, it can take weeks to months before you
can draw any conclusions but it's a damn sight cheaper than shelling out
on a tub of test strips.

>>
>> I've not experienced any of the classic symptoms associated with a
>> sludged up system (no cold spots in any of the rads, no kettling in our
>> ancient Ideal Mexico Super 100 boiler) so I'm left wondering if the
>> prior use of Fernox MB1 has been the reason for our thirty year old
>> system still functioning so well despite the complete lack of any
>> regular annual maintenance work in all of that time.
>
> We used to have a Mexico. I did not get rad cold spots etc, but the
> boiler did kettle, and needed treatment every other year with a noise
> reducer. I don't know how often if ever the system had been treated
> prior to my ownership, but it was obviously not spotless as the above
> pic will attest!

Well, quite! One of the things that seems to save this open vented
system from kettling issues in the boiler is the sheer height of the
header tank relative to the boiler providing higher static water pressure
which will suppress kettling more effectively than it would in a modern 3
bedroom semi-detached system. I was well aware of this when I specified
the use of a floor standing boiler in the basement. :-)

>
>> As far as I can recall, the last time I flushed the system out and
>> re-
>> dosed it with MB1 must be a good 10 years ago when I replaced the pump
>> where I was forced to do a part drain down in order to replace the
>> isolator valves which had started leaking at the spindle glands.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the only definite clue I have is that I dosed the
>> system
>> back in 1998 or so according to the labels I tied to the pipework by
>> the boiler and in the airing cupboard, I find it hard to believe that
>> this *was* actually the last time I treated the system (but it's a
>> possibility).

Actually, when I took another look at the Fernox labels, it goes even
further back than that, November 1994! I had another look for "Evidence"
of my presumed later dosing due to the drain down forced on me by events
when I came to replacing the faulty pump about ten years ago (the weepy
isolator valve spindles turned into little gushers when I tried shutting
them off so had to turn them back on and fiddle them about to slow their
gushing back down to just a slightly faster weeping rate than previously
before shopping around for replacements to let me finish the job).

The *only* evidence I found was one of the original pair of Fernox MB1
boxes (presumed by the tear off label having already been torn off)
alongside the header tank along with a one eighth full container of MB1
sat next to that.

The best I can piece together from this is that I must have had a couple
of litres left over from the 1994 dosing (I only needed to use 6 litres
out of the 8 litre total I'd bought at the time) and only got round to
'freshening up' the system after replacing the pump and the isolator
valves. Even then, it looks as though I still kept a half litre back for
dosing the header tank, a part of the job I never got round to completing
(possibly waiting on my buying another 4 litre pack of MB1 which I also
forgot to sort out).

>>
>> Bearing all that in mind, does anyone have any sage advice to offer
>> in
>> regard of product recommendations?
>
> Only yes use some - preferably a recognised brand. Not sure if the cost
> difference between MB1 and say X100 is really justified - but it may
> well be.

In the end, after seeing how clean the system fill has kept over the
past 20 years since its last proper dosing, I decided to stick with the
expensive MB1 and bought a 4 litre pack from Screwfix this afternoon for
a not quite so eye-watering £29.00 (at least I got change out of thirty
quid! :-).

Our water supply is classed as 'Soft' which I think has contributed to
the remarkably long life of the MB1 inhibitor's effectiveness. We've no
signs of sludging induced problems nor, indeed, sludge itself so rather
than completely flush the system through with an alternative cheaper
brand of cleaner and a fill with same brand inhibitor, I might as well
save myself a lot of grief and just freshen the existing inhibitor back
to a strength that approximates what it was to begin with 20 years ago.

TBH, I'm worried I might give myself a heart attack running around the
system twiddling rad valves and bleed nipples and everything else
associated with draining down/flushing/ refilling with cleaner and then
inhibitor that such a change in the system chemistry dictates.

I'm not as fit as I was ten years ago when I fixed the pump and even
then I only managed to complete a half assed job of refreshing the
inhibitor! The extra 11 quid over my cheapest option is well justified in
the circumstances, especially if it's going to avoid the risk of a heart
attack!

>
> If it were just down to O2 induced corrosion, then they are probably
> comparable:
>
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Inhibitor

I did see that wiki page in my googlings around the net. Interesting to
note how badly the Protex fared in this test, indistinguishable from the
tap water only control sample.

It's a pity that there seems to have been no further testing work as
suggested at the end of that article. It's been a good eleven years since
John Stumbles did those tests.

All I can add to the discussion is my experience with the seeming
effectiveness over the last 20 years of the 30 year life of my system (it
was given the Fernox treatment from day one by the installers). If it's
normally the practice with the cheaper brands to have to refresh every 2
or 3 years, I'd say the extra cost of Fernox is justified (bearing in
mind that my being on a soft water supply may have played no small part
in this extended life of the inhibitor).

My decision to carry on with the Fernox treatment, it has to be
admitted, is in large part due to it being the 'Path of Least
Resistance'. It's worked just fine thus far so there seems every chance
of enjoying another ten years of trouble free heating and hot water
supply. We'll see how it goes.

>
> However, as you said, the full story is a tad more complicated.

Unfortunately so. Maybe my experience will add some more data points for
others to work with. In the meantime, I'll close with thanks to all who
offered the benefit of their own experience.

I've chosen 'my poison' now so I've only got to apply it, hopefully some
time tomorrow, so that will be an end to this thread for the time being.
If anything worth mentioning does happen to come up from my final
ministrations to the system, I'll report back to this thread by way of
'final closure', otherwise I bid you all adieu.

--
Johnny B Good

[John Rumm]

On 7/20/2015 11:31 PM, Johnny B Good wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:49:00 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

>> We used to have a Mexico. I did not get rad cold spots etc, but the
>> boiler did kettle, and needed treatment every other year with a noise
>> reducer. I don't know how often if ever the system had been treated
>> prior to my ownership, but it was obviously not spotless as the above
>> pic will attest!
>
> Well, quite! One of the things that seems to save this open vented
> system from kettling issues in the boiler is the sheer height of the
> header tank relative to the boiler providing higher static water pressure
> which will suppress kettling more effectively than it would in a modern 3
> bedroom semi-detached system. I was well aware of this when I specified
> the use of a floor standing boiler in the basement. :-)

Yup that helps - ours had relatively little head - perhaps 12' max as
the header was on the first floor, not the loft.

> TBH, I'm worried I might give myself a heart attack running around the
> system twiddling rad valves and bleed nipples and everything else
> associated with draining down/flushing/ refilling with cleaner and then
> inhibitor that such a change in the system chemistry dictates.
>
> I'm not as fit as I was ten years ago when I fixed the pump and even
> then I only managed to complete a half assed job of refreshing the
> inhibitor! The extra 11 quid over my cheapest option is well justified in
> the circumstances, especially if it's going to avoid the risk of a heart
> attack!

I seem to recall it was a fair amount of work flushing my system... even
if you only flush each rad for five mins / until clear, by the time you
have reversed the flow direction and done them all for the second time,
you have visited each rad 4 times, and probably been up and down the
stairs for half of those ;-)

>> If it were just down to O2 induced corrosion, then they are probably
>> comparable:
>>
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Inhibitor
>
> I did see that wiki page in my googlings around the net. Interesting to
> note how badly the Protex fared in this test, indistinguishable from the
> tap water only control sample.
>
> It's a pity that there seems to have been no further testing work as
> suggested at the end of that article. It's been a good eleven years since
> John Stumbles did those tests.

I wonder if he still has the jars? ;-)

> All I can add to the discussion is my experience with the seeming
> effectiveness over the last 20 years of the 30 year life of my system (it
> was given the Fernox treatment from day one by the installers). If it's
> normally the practice with the cheaper brands to have to refresh every 2
> or 3 years, I'd say the extra cost of Fernox is justified (bearing in
> mind that my being on a soft water supply may have played no small part
> in this extended life of the inhibitor).

I think the refresh rate will depend on many factors... with a vented
system you are eventually going to run out of O2 scavenger - since the
system is open to the air and can always get fresh O2. With a sealed
system that is less of a problem.

Obviously if you need to (partly) drain down, or top up frequently, then
the inhibitor will need topping up sooner too.

I gave mine an extra litre only because I thought that 2L was only just
on the "adequate" side for the system volume, and also the last time I
cleaned the filter there was very slightly more debris than previous
times (although still very little in absolute terms)

> My decision to carry on with the Fernox treatment, it has to be
> admitted, is in large part due to it being the 'Path of Least
> Resistance'. It's worked just fine thus far so there seems every chance
> of enjoying another ten years of trouble free heating and hot water
> supply. We'll see how it goes.

Indeed - the fact you have no need to do a full drain down has to factor
heavily in what you use - its much simpler to stay with what is in there.

>> However, as you said, the full story is a tad more complicated.
>
> Unfortunately so. Maybe my experience will add some more data points for
> others to work with. In the meantime, I'll close with thanks to all who
> offered the benefit of their own experience.
>
> I've chosen 'my poison' now so I've only got to apply it, hopefully some
> time tomorrow, so that will be an end to this thread for the time being.
> If anything worth mentioning does happen to come up from my final
> ministrations to the system, I'll report back to this thread by way of
> 'final closure', otherwise I bid you all adieu.

Happy inhibiting then ;-)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 04:10:58 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:

> The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
> that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
> works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
> recycling

I did wonder about that. I've got to have a drain down.

> There's one big plus point in favour of using the cheaper stuff, even if
> it works out just as expensive in the longer run, you won't be worrying
> about where you're going to acquire a pair or three of 55 litre drums
> from. :-)

bath


NT

[F]

On 30/07/2015 18:03, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 July 2015 04:10:58 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
>
>> The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
>> that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
>> works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
>> recycling
>
> I did wonder about that. I've got to have a drain down.

Depending on where the repair is, there's not always a need to empty the
entire system.

Turn off the valves at both ends of every radiator that is above the
repair site and you'll have much less to drain out and collect.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 31 July 2015 12:07:47 UTC+1, F wrote:

> On 30/07/2015 18:03, nt wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 July 2015 04:10:58 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
> >
> >> The big question is:- Can it *really* be *that* good? If the answer to
> >> that question is "Yes!", any early drain downs due to unplanned repair
> >> works will see you collecting the effluent in 55 litre drums for
> >> recycling
> >
> > I did wonder about that. I've got to have a drain down.
>
> Depending on where the repair is, there's not always a need to empty the
> entire system.
>
> Turn off the valves at both ends of every radiator that is above the
> repair site and you'll have much less to drain out and collect.

There is in this case :)


NT