Can anybody recognise this plumbing item. I think it may be a de-aerator
Tim
it does. is it a de-aerator?
Does anybody recognise the manufacturer and which is the inlet/outlet
port, upper or lower.
Andy Hall
wrote:
Yes that's exactly what it is.
I'm not sure who the manufacturer of this one is, but the concept is
the same as the Myson Aerjec. Look at www.bes.ltd.uk part number
11334
On yours, the feed expansion pipe would connect at the left (15mm
pipe) and the vent goes where you have marked it.
The purpose is to get the FE and vent pipes close together; then the
other 22mm pipes are on the main circuit. The water swirls in the
cylindrical pot and even fairly fine air bubbles will tend to rise up
and out at the vent.
--
.andy
Derek ^
wrote:
>I have this item in my central heating system and want to confirm what
>it does. is it a de-aerator?
It is a de-aerator for a vented home central heating system..
I had an identical one. There were others.
>
>Does anybody recognise the manufacturer
It was bought unboxed from a builders merchant. Maybe 25 years ago.The
manufacturer was not indicated.
>and which is the inlet/outlet
>port, upper or lower.
I'd guess in at the top, out at the bottom so that the flow from the
inlet doesn't sweep the bubbles up and around the outlet such that
some go with the flow. Probably doesn't make a lot of difference
unless air is continually entering the system which cannot be
tolerated anyway.
They seem to have been de-emphasised now with the advance of sealed
systems and a better understanding of pumping -over.
DG
Tim
>systems and a better understanding of pumping -over.
Thanks Andy & Derek. Curiously the heating installation had this
deaerator and a couple of those ball float designs, which seemed a bit
redundant to me.
Derek, I am curious of your remark about the 'better understanding of
pumping'. Could you clarify this or point me to a URL please?
Best Tim
Derek Geldard
wrote:
I also had the Myson one that Andy mentioned. That one was new and
boxed and came with an propaganda leaflet that illustrated all the
myriad possible "wrong" ways of setting up the feed and expansion,
flow and return piping, and the siting of the pump in order to avoid
such nasties as "pumping - over" or negative pressure in parts of the
system.
The leaflet implied the one sure fire way of avoiding all the problems
was by using a Myson Aerjec.
Apparently this was an issue of concern at the time, this was 25 years
ago. Since one encounters these things so infrequently and most new
build houses since then have been built with wet c/h without a
proprietory de-aerator, I presume that eventually the optimum set up
became the norm.
I could find no mention of de-aerators on the Myson site and their
piping layout diagrams don't include them.
DG
Andy Hall
Yes, in terms of avoiding sucking down or pumping over, positioning
the vent pipe and FE pipe within 150mm of one another on the circuit
avoids the problem.
However, some people managed and still do manage to put one on each
side of the boiler (wrong because of boiler flow resistance) or worse
still on either side of the pump.
Air separators effectively force the plumbing to be done correctly.
The second aspect is that the design of the pot swirls the water and
helps get the air out after initial filling. I fitted one on a
system a few years ago that had has the FE and vent pipes simply
connected to the circuit within 150mm and it did make an improvement,
although not a vast one.
Better yet is to convert the system to sealed operation if the boiler
is OK for that.
--
.andy
Christian McArdle
> build houses since then have been built with wet c/h without a
> proprietory de-aerator, I presume that eventually the optimum set up
> became the norm.
Not quite. Almost all modern boilers prefer a sealed pressurised system.
These devices are only for vented systems which have been rarely fitted
since the 1990s. As it is only existing systems that would need one and, by
definition, they are already installed so need few parts to be bought, they
are rarely seen in the plumbers' merchants.
Christian.
Mike Barnes
We had one fitted here, in about 1997. We were having a new boiler
installed in a different room and going from a gravity-fed-hot-water
system to a fully pumped system. Pipe-routing and space considerations
meant that the layout was not what the plumber would consider ideal, and
the pump had to be located upstairs in the airing cupboard rather than
down by the boiler. The plumber expressed reservations about all this,
muttering something about air bubbles, and recommended a de-aerator.
This could all be complete bollocks of course, but it made some kind of
sense to me in that a pump operating in "pull" mode instead of "push"
mode might cause air induction or make air come out of solution.
Anyway it's no trouble, and I don't imagine it cost very much. The
boiler has always made quite a lot of air-bubbling noises, though.
--
Mike Barnes
Tim
>is OK for that.
I am not sure if I am up to that task just yet!
I found the manufacture of the device. It's a Tower Airjet Air
Seperator and there's a PDF app note with its manufacturer detail
here:
http://www.tfc-group.co.uk/~sa_webapp/run.asp?page=200
Fred
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:oio132124asfjlfij...@4ax.com...
>
> Better yet is to convert the system to sealed operation if the boiler
> is OK for that.
>
According to BS rules 10 years or so, you didn't need an expansion pipe, as
long as you used a cold feed pipe of min 20mm internal diameter, and where
the system components were suitable for sealed operation.
Much easier to add fernox, or if you have to refill the system to collect
the fernox solution and reuse it.
Doctor Drivel
"Derek ^" <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bc6032drdbus12343...@4ax.com...
Nope. They were not liked as they could accumulate sludge and block up.
Also, many did not understand how they worked which was the main problem.
This 3 port type, as opposed to the 4 port type, is used a lot with combined
vent and feed pipe systems (one 22mm pipe into the bottom of the F&E tank
and no vent pipe over the top). On boilers capable of being sealed systems,
combined feed and vent pipes can be used and I prefer them to two-pipe feed
and vent (no pump over or air being sucked in. Some boilers makers, such as
Baxi and Potterton, stipulate that these air ejectors should be on the
combined feed and vent pipe to expel air. They work very well. With
combined feed and vent a very low head can be obtained, so ideal for loft
fitting of boilers. To alleviate fears of sludge accumulating in the air
ejectors it is best to fit a Maganclean on the boiler return pipe, which
grabs magnetite that causes sludge. The Magnaclean protects the whole system
too.
Chris Bacon
> "Derek ^" wrote...
>> Tim wrote:
>>> I have this item in my central heating system and want to confirm what
>>> it does. is it a de-aerator?
>> It is a de-aerator for a vented home central heating system..
They do that. I have had to remove a blockage in the top pipe
of one of these with a drill, it was totally blocked. Cut pipe,
drill out blockage, recouple. PITA.
Doctor Drivel
"Chris Bacon" <chris...@thai.com> wrote in message
news:44312e2c$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
Best to have the 4 port with the pipe out of the bottom. extend the bottom
and have removable cap to clear out sludge and debris. Solids will drop to
the bottom.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>
>"Derek ^" <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> They seem to have been de-emphasised
>> now with the advance of sealed
>> systems and a better understanding
>> of pumping -over.
>
>Nope. They were not liked as they could accumulate sludge and block up.
>Also, many did not understand how they worked which was the main problem.
>This 3 port type, as opposed to the 4 port type, is used a lot with combined
>vent and feed pipe systems (one 22mm pipe into the bottom of the F&E tank
>and no vent pipe over the top). On boilers capable of being sealed systems,
>combined feed and vent pipes can be used and I prefer them to two-pipe feed
>and vent (no pump over or air being sucked in. Some boilers makers, such as
>Baxi and Potterton, stipulate that these air ejectors should be on the
>combined feed and vent pipe to expel air. They work very well. With
>combined feed and vent a very low head can be obtained, so ideal for loft
>fitting of boilers. To alleviate fears of sludge accumulating in the air
>ejectors it is best to fit a Maganclean on the boiler return pipe, which
>grabs magnetite that causes sludge. The Magnaclean protects the whole system
>too.
There is no reason that this problem should happen or one of these
devices needed as long as the system is correctly dosed with
inhibitor. It is dealing with the problem in the wrong way.
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:anq332df2kl58jof2...@4ax.com...
Matt, on a boiler change a Maganclean I would say is essential as desludger
never gets it all out. If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not ,
then the Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
Andy Hall
wrote:
>>>Baxi and Potterton, stipulate that these air ejectors should be on the
>>>combined feed and vent pipe to expel air. They work very well. With
>>>combined feed and vent a very low head can be obtained, so ideal for loft
>>>fitting of boilers. To alleviate fears of sludge accumulating in the air
>>>ejectors it is best to fit a Maganclean on the boiler return pipe, which
>>>grabs magnetite that causes sludge. The Magnaclean protects the whole
>>>system
>>>too.
>>
>> There is no reason that this problem should happen or one of these
>> devices needed as long as the system is correctly dosed with
>> inhibitor. It is dealing with the problem in the wrong way.
>
>Matt, on a boiler change a Maganclean I would say is essential as desludger
>never gets it all out. If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not ,
>then the Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>
This is bullshit.
If a system is badly sludged, then just using desludger is not good
enough anyway. It needs to be powerflushed or some equivalent to
that.
When a boiler is changed, it should be done using the Benchmark
procedures and these include filling with inhibitor.
I do not believe that that only amounts to 5% of installations.
3/10. Must try harder.
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:19:03 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Baxi and Potterton, stipulate that these air ejectors should be on the
>>>>combined feed and vent pipe to expel air. They work very well. With
>>>>combined feed and vent a very low head can be obtained, so ideal for
>>>>loft
>>>>fitting of boilers. To alleviate fears of sludge accumulating in the air
>>>>ejectors it is best to fit a Maganclean on the boiler return pipe, which
>>>>grabs magnetite that causes sludge. The Magnaclean protects the whole
>>>>system
>>>>too.
>>>
>>> There is no reason that this problem should happen or one of these
>>> devices needed as long as the system is correctly dosed with
>>> inhibitor. It is dealing with the problem in the wrong way.
>>
>>Matt, on a boiler change a Maganclean I would say is essential as
>>desludger
>>never gets it all out. If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not ,
>>then the Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>>
> This is bullshit.
Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
** snip appalling Mattness **
Andy Hall
wrote:
>
>"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:s9i532d3t6snvb397...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:19:03 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Baxi and Potterton, stipulate that these air ejectors should be on the
>>>>>combined feed and vent pipe to expel air. They work very well. With
>>>>>combined feed and vent a very low head can be obtained, so ideal for
>>>>>loft
>>>>>fitting of boilers. To alleviate fears of sludge accumulating in the air
>>>>>ejectors it is best to fit a Maganclean on the boiler return pipe, which
>>>>>grabs magnetite that causes sludge. The Magnaclean protects the whole
>>>>>system
>>>>>too.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason that this problem should happen or one of these
>>>> devices needed as long as the system is correctly dosed with
>>>> inhibitor. It is dealing with the problem in the wrong way.
>>>
>>>Matt, on a boiler change a Maganclean I would say is essential as
>>>desludger
>>>never gets it all out. If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not ,
>>>then the Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>>>
>> This is bullshit.
>
>Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>
I don't buy that either. You are pulling numbers from parts of your
anatomy from whence the sun don't shine....
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
Andy Hall
wrote:
Do you really think, in your wildest dreams that if somebody isn't
going to be bothered to have their system correctly dosed with
inhibitor that they will bother with one of these or that the type of
fitter that they are likely to employ will bother either?
You're going to have to try a lot harder to win that promotional
flight of ducks set for your living room wall. Don't forget that
it's a new month now and time for a new boiler of the month...
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
Matt, most people don't know that you need to redose, hence descaling and
powerflushing is big business.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>
>"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no reason that this problem should happen or one of these
>>>>>>>> devices needed as long as the system is correctly dosed with
>>>>>>>> inhibitor. It is dealing with the problem in the wrong way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Matt, on a boiler change a Maganclean I would say is essential as
>>>>>>>desludger
>>>>>>>never gets it all out. If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not
>>>>>>>,
>>>>>>>then the Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>>>>> >>Magnaclean prevents blockages. Got it?
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy that either.
>>>
>>>Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>>> >>Magnaclean prevents blockages". Got it?
>>
>> Do you really think, in your wildest dreams that if somebody isn't
>> going to be bothered to have their system correctly dosed with
>> inhibitor that they will bother with one of these or that the type of
>> fitter that they are likely to employ will bother either?
>
>Matt, most people don't know that you need to redose, hence descaling and
>powerflushing is big business.
>
>Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>Magnaclean prevents blockages". Got it?
No and neither have you.
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" aka Matt <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
Christian McArdle
> Magnaclean prevents blockages". Got it?
The same ignorance that would cause people not to replenish their inhibitor
will predicate against the use of an expensive alternative.
Christian.
Doctor Drivel
"Christian McArdle" <cmcar...@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4434eda7$0$18556$4d4e...@read.news.uk.uu.net...
If it is fitted on a boiler change or new installation then it is there,
even when the house changes hands and the new owners are ignorant of
inhibitor. How any service engineers replace inhibitor? How many bother to
check if it has been replaced?
Fred
"Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4434f089$0$15331$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Given that in reality inhibitor should last many years despite what it
recommends on labels, the statistics you quote bear little resemblance to
reality.
I think many would agree in principle that inhibitor is often overlooked,
nevertheless inhibitor is only lost through leaks or work which required
draining where it wasn't replaced through negligence. I cannot believe that
only 5% of systems have sufficient inhibitor to prevent corrosion.
Doctor Drivel
"Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
news:44352f75$0$8345$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4434f089$0$15331$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>
>> "Christian McArdle" <cmcar...@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4434eda7$0$18556$4d4e...@read.news.uk.uu.net...
>>>> Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>>>> Magnaclean prevents blockages". Got it?
>>>
>>> The same ignorance that would cause people not to replenish their
>>> inhibitor
>>> will predicate against the use of an expensive alternative.
>>
>> If it is fitted on a boiler change or new installation then it is there,
>> even when the house changes hands and the new owners are ignorant of
>>
>
> Given that in reality inhibitor should
> last many years despite what it recommends on labels, the statistics you
> quote bear little resemblance to reality.
I haven't quoted ant stats.
> I think many would agree in principle that inhibitor is often overlooked,
> nevertheless inhibitor is only lost through leaks or work which required
> draining where it wasn't replaced through negligence. I cannot believe
> that only 5% of systems have sufficient inhibitor to prevent corrosion.
As you seen to think inhibitor has an amazing life expectancy, can you put a
time of its usefulness before it requires replacing? 10 years, 20 years, 30
years? And will you back this up please.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>
>"Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
>news:44352f75$0$8345$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4434f089$0$15331$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>
>>> "Christian McArdle" <cmcar...@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:4434eda7$0$18556$4d4e...@read.news.uk.uu.net...
>>>>> Matt, again..."If the system is not re-dosed, and 95% are not, then the
>>>>> Magnaclean prevents blockages". Got it?
>>>>
>>>> The same ignorance that would cause people not to replenish their
>>>> inhibitor
>>>> will predicate against the use of an expensive alternative.
>>>
>>> If it is fitted on a boiler change or new installation then it is there,
>>> even when the house changes hands and the new owners are ignorant of
>>> inhibitor. How many service engineers replace inhibitor? How many
>>> bother to check if it has been replaced?
>>>
>>
>> Given that in reality inhibitor should
>> last many years despite what it recommends on labels, the statistics you
>> quote bear little resemblance to reality.
>
>I haven't quoted ant stats.
Yes you have. You said that 95% are not. Where is your source for
this statistic?
--
.andy
Ed Sirett
IME probably 20% have inhibitor (i.e I can detect it by the look and
smell when I drain down).
I'd about 10-20% of systems have dire faults and serious corrosion,
usually brought about by wrong pipework or a failed expansion vessel.
That leaves a large number which have neither faults nor inhibitor,
generally these don't seem to come to a lot of harm unless electrolytic
corrosion begins.
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:sbka32l939qerbkqk...@4ax.com...
Me. I know these things.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>>>
>>>I haven't quoted ant stats.
>>
>> Yes you have. You said that 95% are not. Where is your source for
>> this statistic?
>
>Me. I know these things.
Oh I see.
I think you are confusing knowing and being known.
It's a similar concept to "some men are discovered, others are found
out".
You might be confusing all of this with the conversation that you had
with Frau Farbissina.
Next time the magnawotsit rep comes in tell him that you're going to
place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly
elaborate and exotic death.
See whether he's willing to swap the Crackerjack pencil that he's
currently offering for a puffy anorak.
Realistically, on current sales volumes, even with bogus ststistics,
the marketing budget is not going to run to that holiday in Eyebyeza
that you so badly want.
You could try sticking out for the iPod Nano, but that is probably
push and go.
--
.andy
Doctor Drivel
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:47:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>I haven't quoted ant stats.
>>>
>>> Yes you have. You said that 95% are not. Where is your source for
>>> this statistic?
>>
>>Me. I know these things.
>
>
> Oh I see.
That's better
Fred
They say 82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Doctor Drivel
"Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
They don't. You made that up.