Cold house - inefficient heating?
Lobster
couple of months ago, the house is not warm enough and am trying to
understand why. I've just been round the house taking temperatures
using the i/r thermometer I bought with a view to balancing the radiators.
First issue is that the roomstat in the hall is set to 20 deg, yet is
displaying 17 deg (which is approx the actual temp in the hall), and is
calling for heat continually as far as I can see (the boiler seems to
have firing pretty much all day).
I've turned up all the TRVs to maximum today (lockshield valves are set
wherever they have been since installation) and measured flow and return
temps at each radiator and the boiler. With the HW off, boiler flow and
return temps are 63 and 53 Celsius; on the radiators the ranges are
51-63 deg (flow) and 47-57 (return). The temp difference across the rads
ranges from 2.5 to 9.5 deg; most of them are at around 5 deg, which is
much too little, right? (should be about 11 deg?)
I'm puzzled as evidently the overall drop accross the boiler flow and
return is about right, but why is it much too small on *all* the rads?
Where's that heat going?! And how can any fine-tuning of the lockshield
valves sort it out? And/or is the new boiler undersized?
If anyone can suggest what I should be doing to get the house heating
properly I'd be very grateful...
Thanks
David
Archie
"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aMR_m.10024$qq6....@newsfe08.ams2...
Have you tried turning up the boiler temperature? If the hall is not getting
up to temperature then either you need a bigger radiator or increase the
system temperature. You may get away with running the boiler at 63C in
spring and autumn but with this cold weather, you may need to increase it. I
have a 24CDI and in winter, the boiler temperature is set at the maximum
(84C).
Archie
Bob Eager
> Notwithstanding having a new boiler (W-B 30CDi system boiler) fitted a
> couple of months ago, the house is not warm enough and am trying to
> understand why. I've just been round the house taking temperatures
> using the i/r thermometer I bought with a view to balancing the
> radiators.
>
> First issue is that the roomstat in the hall is set to 20 deg, yet is
> displaying 17 deg (which is approx the actual temp in the hall), and is
> calling for heat continually as far as I can see (the boiler seems to
> have firing pretty much all day).
Turn up the boiler output temperature. This needs to be as low as
possible to be efficient, but it may be set too low right now to dump
enough heat into the heating circuit. Turn it down again when the cold
spell is over...experiment!
We have a WB 24Ri and, for only the second time since we've had it, it
was clear last week that the rooms weren't heating properly. Turned it up
a bit, and soon reached desired temperature and the stat finally stopped
demanding heat.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
er...@blueyonder.co.uk
Your locksheild valves may be all set as almost closed so the water
going in is too low to heat each one up to anything like needed temp
to work.
I have 8 rads but all but 2 are set wide open. The two set lower are
small ones and early in the flow and return, almost like bypass loops.
The system works perfectly.
ransley
What is boiler temp, is it cycling fire but pump is running so
thermostat is not satisfied, then turn up boiler water temp. You
manual or the co can tel you what max efficency temp is, but I need it
alot higher when its real cold out, in spring I will lower it
Roger Mills
Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me guess - you simply replaced the boiler and kept the existing
radiators. The house was hot enough with the old boiler - when it worked. Is
that right?
If so, the problem is that your radiators were sized on the assumption that
they would be running at a mean temperature of about 75degC. If you run them
at a mean temperature of less than 60 (as required to get max efficiency out
of a condensing boiler) they'll give out a *lot* less heat. So you either
need bigger radiators to compensate for the lower water temperatures - or
you need to turn the boiler up during periods of very cold weather, and sod
the efficiency.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
RobertL
But if the flow rate was too small there would be a large tempertaure
drop across each rad. This is not the case apparently.
Robert
Lobster
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Notwithstanding having a new boiler (W-B 30CDi system boiler) fitted a
>> couple of months ago, the house is not warm enough and am trying to
>> understand why. I've just been round the house taking temperatures
>> using the i/r thermometer I bought with a view to balancing the
>> radiators.
>> First issue is that the roomstat in the hall is set to 20 deg, yet is
>> displaying 17 deg (which is approx the actual temp in the hall), and
>> is calling for heat continually as far as I can see (the boiler seems
>> to have firing pretty much all day).
>>
>> I've turned up all the TRVs to maximum today (lockshield valves are
>> set wherever they have been since installation) and measured flow and
>> return temps at each radiator and the boiler. With the HW off,
>> boiler flow and return temps are 63 and 53 Celsius; on the radiators
>> the ranges are 51-63 deg (flow) and 47-57 (return). The temp
>> difference across the rads ranges from 2.5 to 9.5 deg; most of them
>> are at around 5 deg, which is much too little, right? (should be
>> about 11 deg?)
>> I'm puzzled as evidently the overall drop accross the boiler flow and
>> return is about right, but why is it much too small on *all* the rads?
>> Where's that heat going?! And how can any fine-tuning of the
>> lockshield valves sort it out? And/or is the new boiler undersized?
>
> radiators. The house was hot enough with the old boiler - when it worked. Is
> that right?
Pretty much. Though the old boiler was also a condensing model, and
about half of the rads predate that installation (2001). It's true that
two of the worst affected rooms have prehistoric rads, so it sounds
worthwhile to change those at least. I don't recall the old boiler
being a problem; although that system didn't have a roomstat but not
sure that's relevant given my symptoms.
> If so, the problem is that your radiators were sized on the assumption that
> they would be running at a mean temperature of about 75degC. If you run them
> at a mean temperature of less than 60 (as required to get max efficiency out
> of a condensing boiler) they'll give out a *lot* less heat. So you either
> need bigger radiators to compensate for the lower water temperatures - or
> you need to turn the boiler up during periods of very cold weather, and sod
> the efficiency.
It was certainly particularly cold yesterday - today is fine - so maybe
I do just have to live with cranking up the boiler on such days.
But still not sure why I'm getting the above temperature readings at the
radiators when the flow and return temps at the boiler are 'normal'...
are these observations consistent?
Thanks for all the responses.
David
ransley
> Roger Mills wrote:
> > In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Best is to put money in insulation you will not only save on gas usage
but will be able to run at the most efficent boiler temperature.
Bill
<8477d686-1771-49ee...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> writes
>Best is to put money in insulation you will not only save on gas usage
>but will be able to run at the most efficent boiler temperature.
All very well if you are happy to put up with a stuffy house.
I'm in the same sort of position as lobster. We had a gas fire with back
boiler in the centre of the house. This was replaced by a similarly
rated condensing boiler situated at the corner of the house in a back
kitchen. One radiator was changed to improve the heating in one room,
otherwise the system was as before.
The supposedly more efficient system is running flat out and all the
rads feel too hot to touch, but only get the lounge up to about 18.5 C
after running all day, so we have to have the gas fire on as well. The
controller is set to 21 and sits calling for heat permanently.
My theory is that the old central boiler "wasted heat" up the centre of
the house so the rads had less work to do. Now we have an inefficient
"efficient" system that will cost us a fortune to run and waste less
heat, but heat the garden.
I must measure all the rad and other temperatures. I have the kit, just
not had the time..
--
Bill
The Natural Philosopher
> In message
> <8477d686-1771-49ee...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> writes
>> Best is to put money in insulation you will not only save on gas usage
>> but will be able to run at the most efficent boiler temperature.
>
> All very well if you are happy to put up with a stuffy house.
>
Not so. Insulation merely means you can run what ventilation you need,
rather than having to have masses of it to control condensation.
John Rumm
>> Let me guess - you simply replaced the boiler and kept the existing
>> radiators. The house was hot enough with the old boiler - when it
>> worked. Is that right?
>
> Pretty much. Though the old boiler was also a condensing model, and
> about half of the rads predate that installation (2001). It's true that
> two of the worst affected rooms have prehistoric rads, so it sounds
> worthwhile to change those at least. I don't recall the old boiler
> being a problem; although that system didn't have a roomstat but not
> sure that's relevant given my symptoms.
I doubt the stat is making much difference since it sounds like its not
getting satisfied.
>> If so, the problem is that your radiators were sized on the assumption
>> that they would be running at a mean temperature of about 75degC. If
>> you run them at a mean temperature of less than 60 (as required to get
>> max efficiency out of a condensing boiler) they'll give out a *lot*
>> less heat. So you either need bigger radiators to compensate for the
>> lower water temperatures - or you need to turn the boiler up during
>> periods of very cold weather, and sod the efficiency.
>
> It was certainly particularly cold yesterday - today is fine - so maybe
> I do just have to live with cranking up the boiler on such days.
The other option would be to add a weather compensating stat/programmer
if supported by the boiler (IIRC the CDi does support it). That would
automatically control the flow temperature to take account of
particularly cold (or mild) days.
> But still not sure why I'm getting the above temperature readings at the
> radiators when the flow and return temps at the boiler are 'normal'...
> are these observations consistent?
Many condensers can even bigger flow/return differentials than older
boilers - say 20 degrees rather than the traditional 11.
Some balancing and swapping some of the more marginal rads for higher
output ones sounds like it might be worthwhile.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Jim Lacey
>
>My theory is that the old central boiler "wasted heat" up the centre of
>the house so the rads had less work to do. Now we have an inefficient
>"efficient" system that will cost us a fortune to run and waste less
>heat, but heat the garden.
>
I think you have it spot on.
We have the same problem. Our "inefficient" back boiler gently heated
the chimney breast in the dining room and upstairs passage, and these
were always comfortable. The dining room fire wasn't used much.
Now with the new efficient boiler we have a cold house and have to use
the fire every time we use the dining room! The other rooms are never
up to temperature and we have to use fires in those as well.
Some efficiency!
Jim
dennis@home
"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aMR_m.10024$qq6....@newsfe08.ams2...
> If anyone can suggest what I should be doing to get the house heating
> properly I'd be very grateful...
The usual problem is the plumber has done the rads too small.
Its the norm as they usually work to an outside temp of 1C and its well
below that ATM.
They never check how well its insulated and just guess
they have no idea how much air is exchanged in the rooms.
This is compounded by the fact that condensing boilers need twice the size
that older non condensing boilers needed if you are going to extract enough
heat.
Turn the boiler temp up to about 75+c and things will be better but it
probably won't be a condensing boiler anymore.
dennis@home
<er...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gkunj519hge7e1n75...@4ax.com...
> Your locksheild valves may be all set as almost closed so the water
> going in is too low to heat each one up to anything like needed temp
> to work.
You would expect a big temp drop across the rads if that were the case.
dennis@home
"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0L1%m.27138$pg4....@newsfe02.ams2...
> Pretty much. Though the old boiler was also a condensing model, and about
> half of the rads predate that installation (2001). It's true that two of
> the worst affected rooms have prehistoric rads, so it sounds worthwhile to
> change those at least. I don't recall the old boiler being a problem;
> although that system didn't have a roomstat but not sure that's relevant
> given my symptoms.
As a short term fix you can blow air across/behind them, this will increase
the heat output from the rad.
I have a small ioniser/filter that I have used on a rad I put in as it is
too small in this weather (but no room for a bigger one).
Bill
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
changed, and I like reasonable ventilation. Since the installation of a
more efficient boiler, the house is colder.
We could make a small improvement by increasing insulation, but the
costs would be huge (eg raising a flat roof to put insulation beneath
it) and, where we have a loft, the huge piles of books are probably more
efficient than lifting the boards and adding layers of fibreglass.
I'm afraid that I feel that in most areas we are becoming marshalled
into mental straitjackets rather than encouraged to apply logical
intelligent thought. Almost every area I've been forced into recently
seems to have involved needless reduction in my living standards. The
central heating gives less heat, light bulbs give less light, fence
treatment appears to be turning from oil-based that works to water based
that falls off and don't start me about modern cars after my recent
experiences with main dealers proudly boasting about an 18 month old car
that "it has a new flywheel" (another story too long for here)..
Maybe it's true - I have lived too long.
--
Bill
js.b1
> modern cars after my recent experiences with main
> dealers proudly boasting about an 18 month old car
> that "it has a new flywheel" (another story too long for here).
Dual Mass?
They cost quite a lot more than the old type if they fail :-)
Bruce
wrote:
I've had my dual mass flywheel "repaired" under warranty four times in
the last eight months. I say "repaired" because it needs doing again,
and there are only four months left on the warranty.
js.b1
> I've had my dual mass flywheel "repaired" under warranty four times in
> the last eight months. I say "repaired" because it needs doing again,
> and there are only four months left on the warranty.
Go to www.honestjohn.co.uk and select Technical and your marque/model
of car.
There may be a recall, design fault etc and a known fix.
There used to be just 2 makers of DMF (Dual Mass Flywheel) and one
used by major car brands was known to be problematic except for useful
dealer 100% markup remuneration. The other DMF brand was known to be
superior and not subject to the same problem.
DMF are used particularly with turbo diesel engine cars. Higher torque
engines invariably require straight-cut gear-teeth to achieve the
necessary strength, limit excessive thrust forces, achieve lightness &
avoid expensive through hardening processes. Straight-cut gear-teeth
have the downside that at traffic light idle they would sound
literally like a very large articulated lorry gearbox idle rattle -
basically the teeth hunt up & down in rpm and rattling accordingly.
For dual camshafts this problem is usually resolved by tensioning
springs (friction springs or extra intermeshing gears with odd numbers
of teeth to those on the main shaft), but it is impractical on a
transmission. Instead a much bigger "tensioning spring" sized at the
flywheel is used, a DMF, which counteract the rattle. The rattle can
actually cause microshock loads which affects hardening over time, it
is not entirely aesthetic.
The problem is the DMF technology is relatively new and they are
expensive - worse some marque uses their own designs or modify
existing designs, not always successfully since there is a degree of
"R&D" about it. The camshaft systems required quite a lot of trial and
error w.r.t. temperature, oil viscosity and so on as the load varied
for example.
Much of recent cars is "expensive", "new", "unproven" and your bank
balance funds the R&D, er, I mean maintenance. Worse, Gordon Brown has
no UK car industry to protect so that will become his new target under
"green".
brass monkey
"Jim Lacey" <bo...@virgin.com> wrote in message
news:hrtpj5pbe5kfgp8bp...@4ax.com...
I don't think you can beat decent gas fires. They look warm, they heat the
room, you can stand in front of them and warm yourself, you can keep the
tea-pot/food warm on some of them. You expect heat from the fire-place, it's
a focal point and you arrange furniture to suit, cosy. 8 of our 10 ch rads
are now turned off, far too expensive to run and they simply don't radiate
or convect like a decent gas fire. So for us, it's gas fires (in rooms we
occupy), leccy fan heaters in loos (when occupied) and leccy blankets in
bedrooms (fresher & less stuffy). We're actually using antique 'crystalglow'
fires, beats the crap out of the 'living flame' crud.
The Natural Philosopher
we find the same with the aga. Heats half a pretty large house. Once the
actual CH comes in, its bloody cold already and it REALLY chews oil.
>
> Jim
John
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbfqj5hjjqtl3q3tt...@4ax.com...
A conventional flywheel would outlive a car without ever needing any
consideraration - however DMF along with many other improvements have made a
significant contribution to reliable and economical motoring (I recall
taking my greasegun with me on holidays as the steering on my first car used
to get a bit heavy after a few hundred miles). similar - modern ignition
systems don't suffer the niggling problems in damp weather. Many other
examples could be offered and occasionally sods law strikes and an
improvement leads to you having to repair something that at one time didn't
exist - but consider it holistically.
Bruce
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 12:11�am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks very much for the time you took to reply. I really appreciate
it. The Honest John site came up trumps - it identifies a DMF/clutch
problem suggesting that my car if used for multiple short journeys can
suffer either DMF or clutch failure at intervals as low as 40,000
miles. The car does 25-27,000 miles a year with many short journeys
interspersed between longer journeys, so there is clearly a risk that
these problems will continue and could cost a lot of money when the
car is outside warranty.
I can extend the warranty for a further year from April 2010 for a
reasonable sum, so I will do that. If the problems continue into 2010
I will sell the car and buy a replacement. To be honest, I really
wanted an automatic but bought this manual car because the franchised
dealer was closing down and I got an excellent deal for cash. The
car is very suitable for my needs and is otherwise excellent in every
respect, so an automatic version would appear to be the answer.
Bruce
wrote:
You make a good point about modern cars being generally more reliable.
Generally, I agree, but the DMF has made no contribution to this
increase in reliability.
There are several unrelated brands of car that use dual mass flywheels
and they all seem to exhibit weaknesses that make a complete nonsense
of any claims to greater reliability.
For an extremely clear and concise explanation of the particular
problems with DMFs please read js.b1's reply to my previous post.
Dave Baker
> DMF are used particularly with turbo diesel engine cars. Higher torque
> engines invariably require straight-cut gear-teeth to achieve the
> necessary strength, limit excessive thrust forces, achieve lightness &
> avoid expensive through hardening processes. Straight-cut gear-teeth
> have the downside that at traffic light idle they would sound
> literally like a very large articulated lorry gearbox idle rattle -
> basically the teeth hunt up & down in rpm and rattling accordingly.
All of this mystifies me. AFAIK no ordinary road cars have straight cut
gearboxes, or if there are any it's very few ultra high performance oriented
ones. Straight cut gears make noise under heavy load, basically a god awful
howling, as anyone who's been involved with race cars know, and nothing you
could do to eliminate noise at idle, even if they do make an unusual amount
of noise at idle which I don't even think is the case, would affect this in
any way.
> For dual camshafts this problem is usually resolved by tensioning
> springs (friction springs or extra intermeshing gears with odd numbers
> of teeth to those on the main shaft), but it is impractical on a
> transmission. Instead a much bigger "tensioning spring" sized at the
> flywheel is used, a DMF, which counteract the rattle. The rattle can
> actually cause microshock loads which affects hardening over time, it
> is not entirely aesthetic.
Again, camshafts, especially dual OHC camshafts in modern engines, are
either driven by belt in nearly every case or occasionally by chain.
Straight cut gear teeth do not even factor into this part of the engine.
DMFs are used to reduce transmission rattle by cushioning torsional input
loads from the engine. They also have somewhat of a mitigating effect on
driveline clonk caused by shock loadings from rapid power applications or
gear changes. IMO a sledgehammer, and a very unreliable and expensive one at
that, to crack a pretty non-existant nut.
I wouldn't buy a car with a DMF if you paid me, especially one that already
had a decent mileage on it. I'd rather have a car with a miniscule bit of
rattling you'd never hear with the radio on anyway than one which requires
�1500 to be spent on it every couple of years. In fact my petrol Focus
actually has a slight gearbox noise at very low speed but it was several
years before I even noticed it until that one day I was crawling down a
country lane with the window open and the radio off. Up till then Capital
radio or the CD player had entirely masked it. Why anyone would even worry
about such a slight inconvenience is beyond me. Failed DMFs just make a shit
load of money for car manufacturers is all I can assume and only buyers
refusing to countenance them will see the demise of the damn things.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Bill
<Who90...@ntlworld.com> writes
My first car, a Ford Prefect took me all over the country. Only the
abysmal maintenance by the main Ford agent in Cardiff defeated me and
it.
Then a succession of Mk1 Cortinas were cheerful, cheap to run and I
carried 8x4 sheets of ply in the estate. That one, the 1.5 estate is
what I wish I could buy today but possibly with a simple diesel engine.
A Princess (impossible to maintain) and Montego (rustbucket) were
OK'ish, then 3 Omega estates, no rust and take the 8x4 ply. Ist 2 were
great, 3rd utterly ludicrous overcomplication and horrendous repair
costs only did 95k miles rather than the 200k I expected and got
previously.
I have a grease gun for the lathe and for when I had Defenders, but
never needed to carry one on the road.
Last month's experience with a Focus estate advertised by main dealer
was..... Called in, car up on hoist having DM flywheel replaced under
remaining Ford warranty. No other Focus estate there, so couldn't test
to see if rear seat space acceptable. Inspected underneath only. Week
passed. Car down and ready. Sat in front and back, think it's smaller in
back than hatch, so prob unsuitable. Commented on smell of diesel.
Dealer said just been worked on, so expected. Test drive fine, felt
nice, commented on trip meter saying 7mpg. Dealer said just been worked
on needs reset. Parked, in old trousers, so knelt down looked under car
diesel dripping. Dealer, nice suit, went to find mechanic. Mechanic said
Yes those pipes fell off in workshop we pushed them back on, probably
have to order new push on plastic pipes I made holistic decision and
walked.
I've now bought something else. It judders at certain rpm in all gears
under load. Must have missed that rpm on test drive. Is it the flywheel?
Back in next week for them to say.
I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a car
with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a limited
mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a target
for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want reliability and
simplicity.
I wanted my central heating central.
Why does "efficient" have to work against this and common sense?
--
Bill
The Natural Philosopher
> js.b1 wrote:
>
>> DMF are used particularly with turbo diesel engine cars. Higher torque
>> engines invariably require straight-cut gear-teeth to achieve the
>> necessary strength, limit excessive thrust forces, achieve lightness &
>> avoid expensive through hardening processes. Straight-cut gear-teeth
>> have the downside that at traffic light idle they would sound
>> literally like a very large articulated lorry gearbox idle rattle -
>> basically the teeth hunt up & down in rpm and rattling accordingly.
>
> All of this mystifies me. AFAIK no ordinary road cars have straight cut
> gearboxes, or if there are any it's very few ultra high performance oriented
> ones. Straight cut gears make noise under heavy load, basically a god awful
> howling, as anyone who's been involved with race cars know, and nothing you
> could do to eliminate noise at idle, even if they do make an unusual amount
> of noise at idle which I don't even think is the case, would affect this in
> any way.
>
Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
>
>> For dual camshafts this problem is usually resolved by tensioning
>> springs (friction springs or extra intermeshing gears with odd numbers
>> of teeth to those on the main shaft), but it is impractical on a
>> transmission. Instead a much bigger "tensioning spring" sized at the
>> flywheel is used, a DMF, which counteract the rattle. The rattle can
>> actually cause microshock loads which affects hardening over time, it
>> is not entirely aesthetic.
>
> Again, camshafts, especially dual OHC camshafts in modern engines, are
> either driven by belt in nearly every case or occasionally by chain.
> Straight cut gear teeth do not even factor into this part of the engine.
>
IIRC one or two were done with gears..but I cant recall exactly which,
so I could be wrong.
> DMFs are used to reduce transmission rattle by cushioning torsional input
> loads from the engine. They also have somewhat of a mitigating effect on
> driveline clonk caused by shock loadings from rapid power applications or
> gear changes. IMO a sledgehammer, and a very unreliable and expensive one at
> that, to crack a pretty non-existant nut.
I think I have to agree 100%.
>
> I wouldn't buy a car with a DMF if you paid me, especially one that already
> had a decent mileage on it. I'd rather have a car with a miniscule bit of
> rattling you'd never hear with the radio on anyway than one which requires
> £1500 to be spent on it every couple of years. In fact my petrol Focus
> actually has a slight gearbox noise at very low speed but it was several
> years before I even noticed it until that one day I was crawling down a
> country lane with the window open and the radio off. Up till then Capital
> radio or the CD player had entirely masked it. Why anyone would even worry
> about such a slight inconvenience is beyond me. Failed DMFs just make a shit
> load of money for car manufacturers is all I can assume and only buyers
> refusing to countenance them will see the demise of the damn things.
After all, a clutch with springs in it is anyway pretty much a DMF,
except the second part of the mass is the gearbox input shaft assembly.
I suspect Ford was trying to reduce total flywheel mass. And still not
have a clunky car.
Well that's Ford for you.
The Natural Philosopher
> I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a car
> with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a limited
> mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a target
> for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want reliability and
> simplicity.
>
Skoda. Dirt cheap second hand, because they still carry a totally
unwarranted (sic!) stigma.
> I wanted my central heating central.
>
> Why does "efficient" have to work against this and common sense?
>
Bad is the new good.
read the hilarious novel 'Incompetnce' by Rob Grant, ISBN 978-0-575-07499-1
In the context of building regs, the requirements for insulation and
airtightness are totally destroyed by the requirements for adequate
ventilation.
Unless you use heat recovery ventilation this sets an upper limit on the
amount of insulation its worth putting in a house.
If you want to use a heatpump, or low output temp 'efficient' boiler,
you need to double up on your radiator sizings as well.
Or face using your efficient boiler in a more inefficient part of its
curve.
None of this is headline news, because after all, the whole point of an
'eco' technology, is not to present a low carbon efficient way to do
what's needed, but to make you feel less guilty after shelling out four
times what its worth to acquire it.
Bob Eager
> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
My 2.2 litre Humber Hawk (nearly 50 years!) had a straight cut box. I had
to dismantle it to change first gear and the layshaft...
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Steve Firth
> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
Umm not looked at a Mini then?
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:25:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
>> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
>
> My 2.2 litre Humber Hawk (nearly 50 years!) had a straight cut box. I had
> to dismantle it to change first gear and the layshaft...
>
straight cut boxes and side valve (car) engines petered out in the 60's.
My guess is the gear cutting machines were simply better, and helical
gears sounded better and were not unduly expensive to make. You did need
good thrust bearings in the box tho. or double helical gears..and that's
really when synchromesh was the rule, not the exception, on ALL gears.,
even first!!
and it was all mainly 2:1 chain off the crank to the camshaft, and a
distributor spiral geared off that, or in the case of OHC, run directly
off the shaft end.
Belts came a lot later. Once materials that could handle the strain were
available..fiber glass and kevlar I suspect.
The Natural Philosopher
those aren't straight cut. First and reverse might have been.
Bill
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Bill wrote:
>
>> I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a
>>car with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a
>>limited mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a
>>target for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want
>>reliability and simplicity.
>>
>
>Skoda. Dirt cheap second hand, because they still carry a totally
>unwarranted (sic!) stigma.
Hmm, the thing I have bought is an Octavia estate and it judders at
1500rpm.
18k miles, 2 years warranty and I hope to confirm next week that the
dealer's locally good reputation is justified. I also haven't yet
confirmed what I have seen on the 'net which is that a single mass
flywheel is an official replacement option.
Of course, it might not be the flywheel, but I can't think of many other
parts that would give the symptoms.
--
Bill
Bob Eager
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:25:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
>>> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
>>
>> My 2.2 litre Humber Hawk (nearly 50 years!) had a straight cut box. I
>> had to dismantle it to change first gear and the layshaft...
>>
> that sounds about right..great car that!
>
> straight cut boxes and side valve (car) engines petered out in the 60's.
> My guess is the gear cutting machines were simply better, and helical
> gears sounded better and were not unduly expensive to make. You did need
> good thrust bearings in the box tho. or double helical gears..and that's
> really when synchromesh was the rule, not the exception, on ALL gears.,
> even first!!
I did have a car with a gear-driven camshaft...but a lot earlier. 1952
Land Rover...side valve, pushrods, low slung camshaft. And no synchromesh
on first or second. That's when I learned to double declutch (not that I
owned the car until 1972).
John Rumm
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:13:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:25:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
>>>> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
>>> My 2.2 litre Humber Hawk (nearly 50 years!) had a straight cut box. I
>>> had to dismantle it to change first gear and the layshaft...
>>>
>> that sounds about right..great car that!
>>
>> straight cut boxes and side valve (car) engines petered out in the 60's.
>> My guess is the gear cutting machines were simply better, and helical
>> gears sounded better and were not unduly expensive to make. You did need
>> good thrust bearings in the box tho. or double helical gears..and that's
>> really when synchromesh was the rule, not the exception, on ALL gears.,
>> even first!!
>
> I did have a car with a gear-driven camshaft...but a lot earlier. 1952
> Land Rover...side valve, pushrods, low slung camshaft. And no synchromesh
> on first or second. That's when I learned to double declutch (not that I
> owned the car until 1972).
The Subaru 1800 GLF5 I had in the late 80s had a direct drive cam - but
that was a flat 4 so the cam and crank were right next to each other.
Push rods connected the cam to the lifters. Later ones moved to belt
drive OHCs.
The Natural Philosopher
Oh, 18k miles, it isn't run in yet. My defender did that at 3000 RPM
until about 45k miles.
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
> >> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
> >
> > Umm not looked at a Mini then?
>
> those aren't straight cut.
It depends on which part of the geartrain one is talking abut.
> First and reverse might have been.
And the final drive was for an awful long time. Hence the racket the
gearbox made.
pete
> Bill wrote:
>
>> I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a car
>> with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a limited
>> mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a target
>> for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want reliability and
>> simplicity.
>>
>
> Skoda. Dirt cheap second hand, because they still carry a totally
> unwarranted (sic!) stigma.
>
>
>> I wanted my central heating central.
>>
>> Why does "efficient" have to work against this and common sense?
>>
>
> Bad is the new good.
>
> read the hilarious novel 'Incompetnce' by Rob Grant, ISBN 978-0-575-07499-1
Don't you mean "Incompetnece"? or was that irony on your part :-)
I've read the book - laughed a lot. I also predict, sadly, that it'll
be the "1984" for the 21st century.
Bruce
>Bill wrote:
>
>> I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a car
>> with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a limited
>> mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a target
>> for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want reliability and
>> simplicity.
>>
>
>Skoda. Dirt cheap second hand, because they still carry a totally
>unwarranted (sic!) stigma.
Skoda eh?
The car I am having serious DMF problems with (see above) is a Skoda
Octavia. It is my second Octavia.
I put 154,000 miles on the first one and the only serious problem I
had with it was when a drive belt broke at 144,000. The flailing belt
did a lot of damage but until then the car had required only routine
servicing. After repair I sold the car to a local taxi firm and last
time I saw it the odometer was reading 218,000.
But the new Octavia with dual mass flywheel is an altogether different
proposition.
It isn't only the dual mass flywheel. A work colleague runs an
Octavia with the same engine as mine (2.0 litre PD TDi 140 bhp) but
with the DSG gearbox (paddle shift hear change) which is a quite
different design. Mine is a conventional six speed.
After 106,000 miles he is on his third gearbox and now, just out of
warranty, it is exhibiting the same fault once again. The estimate
for a new gearbox, fitted, is just under �4000 but he has been offered
a goodwill payment of �1300 towards the cost.
We are both now considering conventional automatics. Neither car has
had any problems apart from those with the gearbox, and the
conventional auto has a good reputation for reliability.
I haven't lost faith in the brand as a whole but I would advise people
to steer clear of dual mass flywheels and DSG gearboxes, both of which
have had problems in VW, Audi, SEAT and Skoda models.
Bruce
If the judder is at exactly the same RPM in all gears, it will almost
certainly be either the engine mountings or the exhaust system.
Bill
<docne...@gmail.com> writes
>We are both now considering conventional automatics. Neither car has
>had any problems apart from those with the gearbox, and the
>conventional auto has a good reputation for reliability.
And I wish I could have found a conventional diesel automatic at a price
I could afford and that was new enough to satisfy SWMBO.
I've had conventional automatics for ages and have had no transmission
problems ever. My Disco diesel automatic is fine even with quite a bit
of low-range towing of heavy boats around a field, and son's '97 Merc
diesel auto that I found for him locally is excellent. In the real
world, the small consumption hit is negligible compared with the
advantages.
--
Bill
Bill
<docne...@gmail.com> writes
>If the judder is at exactly the same RPM in all gears, it will almost
>certainly be either the engine mountings or the exhaust system.
I don't think it's the exhaust system. Too violent for that.
It's only when the engine is under load, most noticeable when
accelerating hard at 40ish mph in top. Less noticeable in the lower
gears.
Also when reversing out of my path - full lock, uphill, slowly because
of obstructed vision - the clutch feels very "gritty". I have to keep
the revs there at just over 1100 and upwards to avoid stalling, and it
just doesn't feel right. I used to back the old Defender 200tdi out and
it just worked without me noticing anything odd about the transmission
(although I did have to get rid eventually because my clutch knee played
up).
--
Bill
js.b1
> All of this mystifies me. AFAIK no ordinary road cars have straight cut
> gearboxes
> Again, camshafts, especially dual OHC camshafts in modern engines, are
> either driven by belt in nearly every case or occasionally by chain.
Apologies, I did not mean to imply a pure straight cut :-)
Gearboxes have an obvious helical cut.
- High-torque low-revving turbo diesels impose high loads on gearbox
teeth
- Gear teeth profile & mesh is more "straight cut" that it would
normally be
- Gear teeth are higher strength & lighter weight than they would
normally be
The problem is that profile & mesh permits higher backlash (slop)
under no-load conditions, such that the natural RPM variation of the
engine results in a rattling as backlash varies from zero to maximum.
Backlash is where two gear teeth despite being meshed together can
still move within that mesh by a small rotational distance.
A DMF has dual masses linked by a viscoelastic fluid which acts to
eliminate this RPM oscillation which would otherwise create a rattle
that "hunted" (comes and goes with varying amplitude). Indeed I think
the ECU might actually pick up on the oscillation and whilst trying to
control it due to lag in the feedback loop actually create positive
reinforcement (make the rattle worse).
Camshafts (gear driven DOHC) have an obvious helical cut.
- However during idle the normal RPM variation will cause the intake v
exhaust camshaft to vary slightly in RPM resulting in a varying
backlash against the gearteeth (from zero to maximum backlash).
- The net result would be a rattle, basically you want the gear teeth
to have zero backlash but can't actually achieve that in practice - so
instead "slow" one shaft slightly so as to achieve an effective zero
backlash condition.
- Some vehicles achieve this "slowing" on one camshaft by a second set
of straight gear teeth which have an odd number of teeth - so breaking
up this hunting rattle effect. Others use a friction spring, or a
combination of several methods.
Hope my explanation is clearer.
Easy with a simple animation showing two gearteeth turning - first
showing what backlash is (forward-back clack) and then second showing
how backlash varying results in a rattle that "hunts" as it drifts
repeatedly between zero & maximum over time.
I think DMF are solving a problem that is acoustically minor, perhaps
invented or over emphasised by marketing or focus group testing. They
are expensive - but then so is much of a turbo diesel. That is before
one considers epoxy encapsulated ECU and I should add numerous short
trips on some turbo diesel result in coking of the oil reducing oil
passage size - eventually starving first turbo then (rod) big end
bearings with catastrophic repair cost.
Bruce
Thanks for that. In that case, my bet's on the engine mountings.
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Never ever seen a straight cut road box in the last 50 years..maybe
>>>> reverse gear in a 1948 ford pop..
>>> Umm not looked at a Mini then?
>> those aren't straight cut.
>
> It depends on which part of the geartrain one is talking abut.
>
>> First and reverse might have been.
>
> And the final drive was for an awful long time. Hence the racket the
> gearbox made.
>
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:35:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> I've posted this sort of thing here there and everywhere. I want a car
>>> with a proper spare wheel, of sensible size to carry junk and a limited
>>> mobility back seat passenger, that runs on diesel and is not a target
>>> for political parasites to plunder for car tax. I want reliability and
>>> simplicity.
>>>
>> Skoda. Dirt cheap second hand, because they still carry a totally
>> unwarranted (sic!) stigma.
>>
>>
>>> I wanted my central heating central.
>>>
>>> Why does "efficient" have to work against this and common sense?
>>>
>> Bad is the new good.
>>
>> read the hilarious novel 'Incompetnce' by Rob Grant, ISBN 978-0-575-07499-1
>
> Don't you mean "Incompetnece"? or was that irony on your part :-)
Thts how its written on my cover..
> I've read the book - laughed a lot. I also predict, sadly, that it'll
> be the "1984" for the 21st century.
yup. Until such time as as the competent lose their liberal soft hearts
and discover that survival of ALL consists of them taking over the reins.
The Natural Philosopher
> In message <5ffsj5diu9nl51jso...@4ax.com>, Bruce
> <docne...@gmail.com> writes
>> We are both now considering conventional automatics. Neither car has
>> had any problems apart from those with the gearbox, and the
>> conventional auto has a good reputation for reliability.
>
> And I wish I could have found a conventional diesel automatic at a price
> I could afford and that was new enough to satisfy SWMBO.
>
yeah. We splashed out on an auto freelander. Lovely car, cheap and
economical it aint though.
Edgar Iredale
>
> I did have a car with a gear-driven camshaft...but a lot earlier. 1952
> Land Rover...side valve, pushrods, low slung camshaft. And no synchromesh
> on first or second. That's when I learned to double declutch (not that I
> owned the car until 1972).
The camshaft is chain drive on Series 1 Land Rovers. On the petrol engine
the inlet valves are overhead while exhaust ones are at the side.
Edgar
Bob Eager
You're quite right...I'd forgotten that!
I do remember being outside on a very cold day, grinding the exhaust
valve seats!
Jules
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:13:47 +0000, Edgar Iredale wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> I did have a car with a gear-driven camshaft...but a lot earlier. 1952
>>> Land Rover...side valve, pushrods, low slung camshaft. And no
>>> synchromesh on first or second. That's when I learned to double
>>> declutch (not that I owned the car until 1972).
>>
>> The camshaft is chain drive on Series 1 Land Rovers. On the petrol
>> engine the inlet valves are overhead while exhaust ones are at the side.
>
> You're quite right...I'd forgotten that!
Lots of old Fords seem to have the kind of setup you mentioned, though -
"low slung" crank with direct gear drive, then pushrods to the top.
Whether they were ever straight-cut though, I don't know (they're helical
on my 1967 Ford truck, but maybe they were straight on earlier Fords)
Even the 3-speed 'box on the truck has synchro, at least on second and
third (there's a bit of a knack to getting into first, but that might just
be slop in the column-shift mechanism; it's on the to-do list to
investigate sometime)
> I do remember being outside on a very cold day, grinding the exhaust
> valve seats!
Brr. My last Landy experience was a few years ago: breaking down in the
middle of nowhere, middle of winter, and middle of the night when a core
plug let go in the basket-case V8 LWB that a friend had bought. The heater
didn't work anyway and the doors didn't exactly seal well, so it was no
colder outside than in. ISTR neither of us had a working phone, but we
managed to spot a rural house that still showed signs of life, and
borrowed their landline to call the AA.
Talking of cold, it was -37 here (without windchill) this morning - I went
out to check the fluid levels in the car, and the oil was frozen to the
dipstick. Time to invest in a sump heater, I think...
cheers
Jules
js.b1
wrote:
> Talking of cold, it was -37 here (without windchill) this morning - I went
> out to check the fluid levels in the car, and the oil was frozen to the
> dipstick. Time to invest in a sump heater, I think...
Or synthetic oil pronto unless you want a spun rod bearing :-)
Jules
Hmm, wonder if it'll take synthetic? I thought there was something about
it only being suitable for certain engines* (or maybe it's just that you
can't mix it with non-synthetic oil and so need a totally dry engine
before you can put synthetic in). I shall have to go a-googling...
* the car's a '97 Toyota with their 3-litre V6
cheers
Jules
Steve Firth
> Talking of cold, it was -37 here (without windchill) this morning
Hmm, thats between the boiling points of hydrogen and helium, close to
the boiling point of neon.
Or do you mean in degrees F/C (just about the same thing -37/-38) in
which case it's cold but at least didn't mean that quantum effects were
starting to disrupt the process of eating breakfast by moving the
cornflakes from the packet halfway across the room.
Fredxx
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbqqul.1aqw2el7rx494N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
What? Hydrogen is liquid below -253 degs C!! Even Neon has a boiling point
of -249 degs C.
Which temperature scale are you thinking of?
PeterC
The negative side of 0K?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
js.b1
wrote:
> Hmm, wonder if it'll take synthetic? I thought there was something about
> it only being suitable for certain engines* (or maybe it's just that you
> can't mix it with non-synthetic oil and so need a totally dry engine
> before you can put synthetic in). I shall have to go a-googling...
No, it will be fine.
For obvious reasons additive packages are compatible, and you should
stick to the correct weight of oil for your temperature. Whilst many
people like 0wXX synthetic oil for winter, I think it's a bit too thin
(the first figure is cold viscosity) and 5wXX is better. Synthetic
allows better cold & hot weather protection without the oil sludging,
quite a few oil FAQs out there.
Synthetic does have a stronger detergent package and more anti-wear
additives than conventional oil, but if all that is plugging a leak is
sludge you will soon have other things to worry about.
You may see slightly higher oil consumption on lift-off at high RPM
(pull thro under vacuum from the valve stem seals, piston rings). That
can easily be monitored. Other oil leaks need fixing just as with any
car - usually oil pressure sender.
> * the car's a '97 Toyota with their 3-litre V6
Sounds like the infamous Camry, reliable & popular USA/Canada-side.
Beware semi-synthetic does not need to have much synthetic to be
called synthetic. The pour point of many cheap oils is not that good
vs -37oC temperatures. Starvation is never good for bearings and V6s
often have marginal oil path by #6.
Jules
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Talking of cold, it was -37 here (without windchill) this morning
>
> Hmm, thats between the boiling points of hydrogen and helium, close to
> the boiling point of neon.
>
> Or do you mean in degrees F/C (just about the same thing -37/-38)
Yeah, that was C - I was kind and did the conversion from F for people :-)
Not that it makes much difference at those sorts of numbers. Thankfully it
wasn't too windy, so we only had about ten degrees of windchill on top of
that.
(Huge - northern MN)
cheers
Jules
Jules
> On Jan 2, 7:59 pm, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hmm, wonder if it'll take synthetic? I thought there was something about
>> it only being suitable for certain engines* (or maybe it's just that you
>> can't mix it with non-synthetic oil and so need a totally dry engine
>> before you can put synthetic in). I shall have to go a-googling...
>
> No, it will be fine.
> For obvious reasons additive packages are compatible, and you should
> stick to the correct weight of oil for your temperature. Whilst many
> people like 0wXX synthetic oil for winter, I think it's a bit too thin
> (the first figure is cold viscosity) and 5wXX is better.
Yeah, I normally put 5Wxx stuff in for just that reason.
> Synthetic
> allows better cold & hot weather protection without the oil sludging,
> quite a few oil FAQs out there.
Well, I might go for synthetic if I can mix them - I just changed the oil
recently so am reluctant to drain and start with something new until the
next change is due.
> Synthetic does have a stronger detergent package and more anti-wear
> additives than conventional oil, but if all that is plugging a leak is
> sludge you will soon have other things to worry about.
It leaks like the proverbial already :-) (well OK, not that bad, but the
oil consumption is reasonably high. It's got about 170k on the clock, so
it's getting up there in terms of wear)
> Other oil leaks need fixing just as with any car - usually oil
> pressure sender.
I need to clean it all somehow sometime, then I stand a chance of seeing
exactly where the (external) leaks are and maybe I can fix them. I hate
futzing with more modern cars though - dismantling half the darn engine
just to get at a problem drives me nuts :-)
>> * the car's a '97 Toyota with their 3-litre V6
>
> Sounds like the infamous Camry, reliable & popular USA/Canada-side.
Yeah, it's an Avalon but I think the bulk of the mechanicals are the same
as the Camry.
It's a pretty reasonable engine - quite 'pokey' and it's doing well
considering the mileage. Shame the car's a fwd with a slushbox or I'd be
taking more care of it with a view to using it as a donor in some form of
kit-car when the Avalon eventually gets retired!
> Beware semi-synthetic does not need to have much synthetic to be called
> synthetic. The pour point of many cheap oils is not that good vs -37oC
> temperatures. Starvation is never good for bearings and V6s often have
> marginal oil path by #6.
Yeah, I can get a sump heater (which should have some heating benefit for
the rest of the block too) for about $50 (which must be what, about 30
quid), so it seems like an easy thing to do - at least it'll add a bit of
protection at the 'home' end. I want to rebuild our garage at some point
and will probably incorporate a heated floor, but that's four or five
years off.
cheers
Jules
Steve Firth
> Yeah, that was C - I was kind and did the conversion from F for people :-)
> Not that it makes much difference at those sorts of numbers. Thankfully it
> wasn't too windy, so we only had about ten degrees of windchill on top of
> that.
>
> (Huge - northern MN)
Jings, is that near the tomb of the Unknown Norwegian?
Doctor Drivel
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:hhj1ie$pma$1...@news.datemas.de...
> This is compounded by the fact that condensing boilers need twice the size
> that older non condensing boilers needed if you are going to extract
> enough heat.
Total bollox.
> Turn the boiler temp up to about 75+c and things will be better but it
> probably won't be a condensing boiler anymore.
It will, it doesn't morph. It is more efficient even when producing
condensate.
Doctor Drivel
"Jim Lacey" <bo...@virgin.com> wrote in message
news:hrtpj5pbe5kfgp8bp...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>My theory is that the old central boiler "wasted heat" up the centre of
>>the house so the rads had less work to do. Now we have an inefficient
>>"efficient" system that will cost us a fortune to run and waste less
>>heat, but heat the garden.
>>
>
> I think you have it spot on.
>
> We have the same problem. Our "inefficient" back boiler gently heated
> the chimney breast in the dining room and upstairs passage, and these
> were always comfortable. The dining room fire wasn't used much.
>
> Now with the new efficient boiler we have a cold house and have to use
> the fire every time we use the dining room! The other rooms are never
> up to temperature and we have to use fires in those as well.
>
> Some efficiency!
I bet your bills are less. You had incidental heat, which in summer you do
not want. Now you have controlled heat - much better.
Jules
> On 2010-01-03, Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (Huge - northern MN)
>
> Thanks. Sounds a little cool for my tastes.
I don't notice it much, I suppose. Once it's cold, it's cold, no matter
how cold it is. The only downside is that the heating bills get to be
somewhat astronomical - although we take the 1950s approach of wearing
warm clothes and keeping the house at about 65F, rather than the mid-70s
that a lot of people seem to aim for these days :-)
cheers
Jules
Dave
That is a good reminder for me to turn down the stat. It is 72.1 F in
this room, at chest level temperature at the moment and I am in my shirt
sleeves right now :-(
Job done.
Thanks
Dave
YAPH
> This is compounded by the fact that condensing boilers need twice the
> size that older non condensing boilers needed if you are going to
> extract enough heat.
Bzzzt! A condensing boiler[0] can get flow temperatures up to practically
boiling point, certainly no less than a standard-efficiency boiler.
If you're doing a new CH installation you can calculate[1] your rad sizes
for lower flow and return temperatures to get the *highest* efficiency out
of condensing boilers, but in the Real World(tm) people don't change their
rads when they replace a standard-efficiency boiler with a condensing one,
so what happens then? Answer: the condensing one can run at the same flow
temperature as the old one it replaced thus putting just as much heat into
the radiators and thence the house. And because its heat exchanger is more
efficient even when it's not running in fully condensing mode it puts less
of the heat you're paying for (via your gas bill) out of the house via the
flue, than the old one did. It also puts less heat into the house via the
boiler itself, so if you had an old dinosaur floor-mounted jobby in the
corner of your kitchen[2] you'll need a radiator to supply heat there
instead. Which is A Good Thing(tm) since in summer, when the boiler's
still heating hot water, you don't want that waste heat in your kitchen.
> Turn the boiler temp up to about 75+c and things will be better but it
> probably won't be a condensing boiler anymore.
Turn the boiler up to 80 or more if it's really cold outside. It'll still
be much higher efficiency than the
never-under-any-circumstances-condensing one it replaced. Just feel the
side of the boiler or the flue gases[3] to get a sense of the difference.
[0] Worcester-Bosch Greenstar 24i junior, for example - the model I'm
most familiar with
[1] as in plus, minus, times and divide - not wet finger in the air
and "hmmm, think that'll do it"
[2] as I did: the boiler was in a 2-unit-wide cupboard in the kitchen
and we used to dry clothes in the other half of the cupboard. Now we have
a (gas) tumble-dryer in the space, and a radiator in the kitchen.
[3] carefully, if you have a conventional boiler: it might be hard to get
to your local A+E/burns unit in all this snow
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
Life is nature's way of keeping meat fresh
dennis@home
"YAPH" <use...@yaph.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7qi1nk...@mid.individual.net...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:29:03 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> This is compounded by the fact that condensing boilers need twice the
>> size that older non condensing boilers needed if you are going to
>> extract enough heat.
>
> Bzzzt! A condensing boiler[0] can get flow temperatures up to practically
> boiling point, certainly no less than a standard-efficiency boiler.
>
> If you're doing a new CH installation you can calculate[1] your rad sizes
> for lower flow and return temperatures to get the *highest* efficiency out
> of condensing boilers, but in the Real World(tm) people don't change their
> rads when they replace a standard-efficiency boiler with a condensing one,
> so what happens then? Answer: the condensing one can run at the same flow
> temperature as the old one it replaced thus putting just as much heat into
> the radiators and thence the house. And because its heat exchanger is more
> efficient even when it's not running in fully condensing mode it puts less
> of the heat you're paying for (via your gas bill) out of the house via the
> flue, than the old one did.
By a negligible amount.
They only offer better efficiency by condensing the water vapour not by
cooling the gas a couple more degrees.
> It also puts less heat into the house via the
> boiler itself, so if you had an old dinosaur floor-mounted jobby in the
> corner of your kitchen[2] you'll need a radiator to supply heat there
> instead. Which is A Good Thing(tm) since in summer, when the boiler's
> still heating hot water, you don't want that waste heat in your kitchen.
>
>
>
>
>> Turn the boiler temp up to about 75+c and things will be better but it
>> probably won't be a condensing boiler anymore.
>
> Turn the boiler up to 80 or more if it's really cold outside. It'll still
> be much higher efficiency than the
> never-under-any-circumstances-condensing one it replaced.
How?
> Just feel the
> side of the boiler or the flue gases[3] to get a sense of the difference.
A few tens of degrees at best.
>
>
> [0] Worcester-Bosch Greenstar 24i junior, for example - the model I'm
> most familiar with
>
> [1] as in plus, minus, times and divide - not wet finger in the air
> and "hmmm, think that'll do it"
>
> [2] as I did: the boiler was in a 2-unit-wide cupboard in the kitchen
> and we used to dry clothes in the other half of the cupboard. Now we have
> a (gas) tumble-dryer in the space, and a radiator in the kitchen.
>
> [3] carefully, if you have a conventional boiler: it might be hard to get
> to your local A+E/burns unit in all this snow
I have one and I could hold my hand in the exhaust for minutes and not get
burnt as long as its 20 cm away.
Its 28 years old and a condensing boiler isn't going to be more than ~15%
better even when its condensing.
Having to run it in non-condensing mode is a joke.
Even running it in non-condensing mode won't help if the plumber has done
his sums based on 1C and fitted a boiler with a maximum output less than
that lost.
John Rumm
>> Turn the boiler up to 80 or more if it's really cold outside. It'll still
>> be much higher efficiency than the
>> never-under-any-circumstances-condensing one it replaced.
>
> How?
By having a much larger primary heat exchanger for starters. Also a pre
mix burner (hence modulation), forced induction, no permanent pilot
light and a number of other gas saving mechanisms.
>> Just feel the
>> side of the boiler or the flue gases[3] to get a sense of the difference.
>
> A few tens of degrees at best.
With a modern boiler and a return temperature of 70 degress, the flue
gas temperature will be fairly close to the return temperature. On many
old boilers you will have flue temperatures of 200 degrees or more in
some cases. The old boiler itself will also leak heat into the room at a
not insignificant rate, compared to a new one where the case will be at
most "warm" to the touch.
>> [3] carefully, if you have a conventional boiler: it might be hard to get
>> to your local A+E/burns unit in all this snow
>
> I have one and I could hold my hand in the exhaust for minutes and not
> get burnt as long as its 20 cm away.
>
> Its 28 years old and a condensing boiler isn't going to be more than
> ~15% better even when its condensing.
> Having to run it in non-condensing mode is a joke.
With modulation it will be able to run in condensing mode more often
that you might expect. Depends on what you are comparing it against.
Getting more than 15% improvement on the boiler alone should be fairly
easy when compared to something with 70% seasonally adjusted efficiency
or lower. Especially when one includes the effects of modernising the
controls as well.
> Even running it in non-condensing mode won't help if the plumber has
> done his sums based on 1C and fitted a boiler with a maximum output less
> than that lost.
True, but that applies to any boiler.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Andrew Gabriel
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>
>
> "YAPH" <use...@yaph.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7qi1nk...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:29:03 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> This is compounded by the fact that condensing boilers need twice the
>>> size that older non condensing boilers needed if you are going to
>>> extract enough heat.
>>
>> Bzzzt! A condensing boiler[0] can get flow temperatures up to practically
>> boiling point, certainly no less than a standard-efficiency boiler.
>>
>> If you're doing a new CH installation you can calculate[1] your rad sizes
>> for lower flow and return temperatures to get the *highest* efficiency out
>> of condensing boilers, but in the Real World(tm) people don't change their
>> rads when they replace a standard-efficiency boiler with a condensing one,
>> so what happens then? Answer: the condensing one can run at the same flow
>> temperature as the old one it replaced thus putting just as much heat into
>> the radiators and thence the house. And because its heat exchanger is more
>> efficient even when it's not running in fully condensing mode it puts less
>> of the heat you're paying for (via your gas bill) out of the house via the
>> flue, than the old one did.
>
> By a negligible amount.
> They only offer better efficiency by condensing the water vapour not by
> cooling the gas a couple more degrees.
Sorry, but that's complete bollocks (TM).
Flue outlet from a condensing boiler is typically around 5C
higher than the return water temperature (43C in my case).
Flue outlet from a conventional boiler is typically somewhere
between 145C and 220C. Because it has to remain above boiling
point right through to the flue terminal exit. A back boiler
may even output higher temperature from the boiler itself
because it has to contend with a long flue.
>> Turn the boiler up to 80 or more if it's really cold outside. It'll still
>> be much higher efficiency than the
>> never-under-any-circumstances-condensing one it replaced.
>
> How?
They have more efficient heat exchangers - they have to in
order to extract enough energy from the flue gasses to get
them below the dew point.
>> Just feel the
>> side of the boiler or the flue gases[3] to get a sense of the difference.
>
> A few tens of degrees at best.
A difference of moist air at 43C (not that different from
what you breathe out), or steam at 145-220C, which will give
you a nasty burn if you hold your hand there long enough.
>> [3] carefully, if you have a conventional boiler: it might be hard to get
>> to your local A+E/burns unit in all this snow
>
> I have one and I could hold my hand in the exhaust for minutes and not get
> burnt as long as its 20 cm away.
Well, that's not the flue gas - that's diluted with the
surrounding air. You can hold your hand in the outlet from
a condensing boiler.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Doctor Drivel
> If you're doing a new CH installation you can calculate[1] your rad sizes
> for lower flow and return temperatures to get the *highest* efficiency out
> of condensing boilers, but in the Real World(tm) people don't change their
> rads when they replace a standard-efficiency boiler with a condensing one,
> so what happens then? Answer: the condensing one can run at the same flow
> temperature as the old one it replaced thus putting just as much heat into
> the radiators and thence the house.
The only time it needs 80C to the rads is when it is around -1 to -3
outside. Higher than that and the rads can be a lower temperature. In 90%
of running time boilers are running on part load - that is if it is
perfectly matched in kW to the house. This means it is inefficient.
This is where a condensing boiler and a weather compensator shine. It only
makes the rads 80C when the outside temperatures tells it too and when
outside is warmer it drops the rads temperature increasing efficiency.
Condensing boilers and weather compensators are perfectly matched to each
other. You do not need to increase the size of the rads to get maximum
efficiency from a condensing boiler, the weather compensator does it for
you.
Doctor Drivel
You clearly have not a clue on what you write. Please stop and understand
before making yourself look even more foolish.
dennis@home
"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hi2mk4$797$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sorry but that's complete bollocks..
a condensing boiler running in non-condensing mode as we are talking about
only save the specific heat of the difference in temperature..
This is about 1/2000th of the latent heat saved if it is condensing.
So if it saves 20% while condensing it will only save about nothing when
non-condensing.
dennis@home
"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hi2mk4$797$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Well, that's not the flue gas - that's diluted with the
> surrounding air. You can hold your hand in the outlet from
> a condensing boiler.
Not at 70C+ you can't.
Mike
>I don't think you can beat decent gas fires. They look warm, they heat the
>room, you can stand in front of them and warm yourself, you can keep the
>tea-pot/food warm on some of them. You expect heat from the fire-place, it's
>a focal point and you arrange furniture to suit, cosy. 8 of our 10 ch rads
>are now turned off, far too expensive to run and they simply don't radiate
>or convect like a decent gas fire. So for us, it's gas fires (in rooms we
>occupy), leccy fan heaters in loos (when occupied) and leccy blankets in
>bedrooms (fresher & less stuffy). We're actually using antique 'crystalglow'
>fires, beats the crap out of the 'living flame' crud.
Most, (make that all) gas fires are hopelessly inefficient. 40% at
best, so in choosing to use it rather than a condensing boiler you are
chucking out twice as much heat up the chimney than into the room.
Also respiratory conditions are made much worse by cold air, so
electric blankets, no radiators and a room with ice on the inside of
the windows is guaranteed to kill you eventually.
--
Tim W
wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 23:02
Ever been in a Sauna? Air temp is around 100C.
Clue: Specific Heat Capacity...
--
Tim Watts
You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...
Doctor Drivel
You are a total idiot. Maxie was right about you. Maxie knows these things.
dennis@home
"Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:hi46pq$q4e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 23:02
>
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hi2mk4$797$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Well, that's not the flue gas - that's diluted with the
>>> surrounding air. You can hold your hand in the outlet from
>>> a condensing boiler.
>>
>> Not at 70C+ you can't.
>
> Ever been in a Sauna? Air temp is around 100C.
>
> Clue: Specific Heat Capacity...
Clue, humidity.
Try a Turkish baths at 100C.
Tim W
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 14:10
What's the humidity of gases coming off a boiler in condensing mode?
dennis@home
"Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:hi4rom$f4r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 14:10
>
>>
>>
>> "Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
>> news:hi46pq$q4e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
>>> wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 23:02
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hi2mk4$797$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's not the flue gas - that's diluted with the
>>>>> surrounding air. You can hold your hand in the outlet from
>>>>> a condensing boiler.
>>>>
>>>> Not at 70C+ you can't.
>>>
>>> Ever been in a Sauna? Air temp is around 100C.
>>>
>>> Clue: Specific Heat Capacity...
>>
>> Clue, humidity.
>> Try a Turkish baths at 100C.
>
> What's the humidity of gases coming off a boiler in condensing mode?
Obviously saturated.
Tim W
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 19:30
Alright. I'm sorry. I was talking bollocks. I sketched through some
calculations and google and 70C air at 100% humidity has at least one order
of magnitude more potential energy relative to a 40C surface (skin at blood
temp approximation) compared to dry air at 100C.
I suppose it all comes down to the gas flow rate, losses in the pipe etc as
to how bad (or not) it would actually be to stick your fingers down a flue
pipe of such a boiler...
dennis@home
"Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:hi5oec$74l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Alright. I'm sorry. I was talking bollocks.
That's OK everyone makes mistakes.
At least you have enough knowledge to realise, unlike many in this group.
geoff
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
--
geoff
The Natural Philosopher
is my memory of 1963..no electric blankets either..
Rod
<>
>
> Not if you get run over by a gritting lorry first ...
>
>
--
Rod
pete
As is the chances of stroke and heart attack, since blood clots easier
when it's cooler.
>>>
>> Not if you get run over by a gritting lorry first ...
>>
>>
> Good g (no radiators and a room with ice on the inside of the windows )
> is my memory of 1963..no electric blankets either..
>
One of my only memories if '63 was discovering that the milk had frozen
in the bottles on the doorstep, and pushed the foil caps off[1]. Such is
progress that this is never a problem today. First sign of a snowflake
and all the deliveries get canned. That's if there's even anyone in your
street who wants milk delivered these days ...
[1] oh yes, that reminds me. Birds pecking through the foil to get to
the "top of the milk". The horror! think of the health implications!
Andy Burns
> That's if there's even anyone in your
> street who wants milk delivered these days ...
Yeah well, when the milkman kept deciding to leave me "extra" un-ordered
pints and arriving after I'd left for work (and I'm no early bird), it
was time to cancel.
I now buy that ultra-filtered stuff that lasts very well ...
geoff
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
That, and getting completely engulfed in a 9 foot high snowdrift
--
geoff
geoff
Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> writes
>On 09/01/10 08:00, pete wrote:
>
>> That's if there's even anyone in your
>> street who wants milk delivered these days ...
>
>Yeah well, when the milkman kept deciding to leave me "extra"
>un-ordered pints and arriving after I'd left for work (and I'm no early
>bird), it was time to cancel.
>
one more time to get payment
that, and costing twice what it cost from a supermarket
--
geoff
Andrew Gabriel
but no steam (latent heat has already been recovered).
Conventional boiler flue contains steam - loads more energy,
in addition to being 100C or more hotter.
Doctor Drivel
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01.02...@remove.this.gmail.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:17:03 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:13:47 +0000, Edgar Iredale wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did have a car with a gear-driven camshaft...but a lot earlier. 1952
>>>> Land Rover...side valve, pushrods, low slung camshaft. And no
>>>> synchromesh on first or second. That's when I learned to double
>>>> declutch (not that I owned the car until 1972).
>>>
>>> The camshaft is chain drive on Series 1 Land Rovers. On the petrol
>>> engine the inlet valves are overhead while exhaust ones are at the side.
>>
>> You're quite right...I'd forgotten that!
>
> Lots of old Fords seem to have the kind of setup you mentioned, though -
> "low slung" crank with direct gear drive, then pushrods to the top.
> Whether they were ever straight-cut though, I don't know (they're helical
> on my 1967 Ford truck, but maybe they were straight on earlier Fords)
>
> Even the 3-speed 'box on the truck has synchro, at least on second and
> third (there's a bit of a knack to getting into first, but that might just
> be slop in the column-shift mechanism; it's on the to-do list to
> investigate sometime)
>
>> I do remember being outside on a very cold day, grinding the exhaust
>> valve seats!
>
> Brr. My last Landy experience was a few years ago: breaking down in the
> middle of nowhere, middle of winter, and middle of the night when a core
> plug let go in the basket-case V8 LWB that a friend had bought. The heater
> didn't work anyway and the doors didn't exactly seal well, so it was no
> colder outside than in. ISTR neither of us had a working phone, but we
> managed to spot a rural house that still showed signs of life, and
> borrowed their landline to call the AA.
>
> Talking of cold, it was -37 here (without windchill) this morning - I went
> out to check the fluid levels in the car, and the oil was frozen to the
> dipstick. Time to invest in a sump heater, I think...
Or use fully synthetic oil,which will not solidify at those temperatures.
Doctor Drivel
"js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f2026c1b-baa2-40eb...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> * the car's a '97 Toyota with their 3-litre V6
Sounds like the infamous Camry, reliable & popular USA/Canada-side.
Beware semi-synthetic does not need to have much synthetic to be
called synthetic. The pour point of many cheap oils is not that good
vs -37oC temperatures. Starvation is never good for bearings and V6s
often have marginal oil path by #6.
<<<<<
Good point. Always use a "fully" synthetic. I see Tesco are selling it cheap
enough (made by Chevron under the Tesco brand). It has the highest
protection.
"Meets or exceeds:- SAE 5W/40 API SM/CF
ACEA A3, B3, B4."
API SM is the highest protection. SM is the latest spec. S mean spaek
ignition engine. M is the level of protection - the highest.
Some makes may still have SL, as SM is quite new.
I believe since around 1995 on all Toyotas the makers specify a minimum of
semi-synthetic oil.
A fully synthetic also is easier to turn the engine over in freezing
temperatures, so reducing pull on the battery. If the battery is low the
fully synthetic oil may give enough free engine movement to start the
engine. Also the oil gets to the bearings ASAP as it is so thin at all
temperatures.
Doctor Drivel
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:36:59 -0800, js.b1 wrote:
>
>> On Jan 2, 7:59� pm, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, wonder if it'll take synthetic? I thought there was something about
>>> it only being suitable for certain engines* (or maybe it's just that you
>>> can't mix it with non-synthetic oil and so need a totally dry engine
>>> before you can put synthetic in). I shall have to go a-googling...
>>
>> No, it will be fine.
>> For obvious reasons additive packages are compatible, and you should
>> stick to the correct weight of oil for your temperature. Whilst many
>> people like 0wXX synthetic oil for winter, I think it's a bit too thin
>> (the first figure is cold viscosity) and 5wXX is better.
>
> Yeah, I normally put 5Wxx stuff in for just that reason.
>
>> Synthetic
>> allows better cold & hot weather protection without the oil sludging,
>> quite a few oil FAQs out there.
>
> Well, I might go for synthetic if I can mix them - I just changed the oil
> recently so am reluctant to drain and start with something new until the
> next change is due.
It is case of having to do it.
>> Synthetic does have a stronger detergent package and more anti-wear
>> additives than conventional oil, but if all that is plugging a leak is
>> sludge you will soon have other things to worry about.
It also has far higher "sheer". That is the compressibility - it does not
part allowing metal to metal contact. Keep the metal surfaces from touching
each other and no wear. It also takes a hell of a long time to break down
and can be run for 20,000 miles in most cases - as long as the oil filter is
changed at the makers frequency. Even quality mineral oils can seriously
break down after a few thousand miles.
> It leaks like the proverbial already :-) (well OK, not that bad, but the
> oil consumption is reasonably high. It's got about 170k on the clock, so
> it's getting up there in terms of wear)
I know of some Toyotas that have done those mileages and no oil drinking -
they were running on fully synthetic from new.
>> Other oil leaks need fixing just as with any car - usually oil
>> pressure sender.
>
> I need to clean it all somehow sometime, then I stand a chance of seeing
> exactly where the (external) leaks are and maybe I can fix them. I hate
> futzing with more modern cars though - dismantling half the darn engine
> just to get at a problem drives me nuts :-)
>
>>> * the car's a '97 Toyota with their 3-litre V6
>>
>> Sounds like the infamous Camry, reliable & popular USA/Canada-side.
>
> Yeah, it's an Avalon but I think the bulk of the mechanicals are the same
> as the Camry.
>
> It's a pretty reasonable engine - quite 'pokey' and it's doing well
> considering the mileage. Shame the car's a fwd with a slushbox or I'd be
> taking more care of it with a view to using it as a donor in some form of
> kit-car when the Avalon eventually gets retired!
>
>> Beware semi-synthetic does not need to have much synthetic to be called
>> synthetic. The pour point of many cheap oils is not that good vs -37oC
>> temperatures. Starvation is never good for bearings and V6s often have
>> marginal oil path by #6.
>
> Yeah, I can get a sump heater (which should have some heating benefit for
> the rest of the block too) for about $50
No need just use fully synthetic oil. The days of sump heaters are over -
only of use in the Antarctic, maybe. Get the silly oil leaks fixed and run
fully synthetic, observe as you go along. The Toyota V6s are unbustable and
one of the best V engines ever made, along with the Toyota A series engines.
People think fully synthetics are only good for high performance cars. The
small hatch runabout needs it probably more as these are rarely up to fully
temperature when running as they do a lot of start stop driving on choke a
lot as well. The synthetic oil doesn't break down as easily when the over
rich contaminants pass the pistons, so greatly beneficial to these cars.