Fernox then?

[Careful_Bodger]

Following the advice (gratefully received - thanks Oilman) in response to my last post - can I assume that all cleaning/flushing products are similarly effective, or do you get what you pay for.

My local store has Fernox, Betz Dearborn, and Flushex (sometimes). Are they comparable? Are they incompatible?

Do the 'noise silencer' products work any better than, say, an inhibitor.

 

[corgiman]

Noise silence and inhibitor are two different things mate

My adivse is stick with fernox the reason Is I like the bottle they are all much of a muchness

 

[ChrisR]

Just for a different answer to the above - They can be radically different. Some inhibitors cause severe problems. "Cleaners" range from mild flocculating agents which just get crud into suspension, to hydrochloric acid.
Best? for cleaning it depends on your problem, for inhibiting it depends on your system - Sentinel X100 is ok.

 

[corgiman]

I find myself in the extremely unusual position of having to disagree with ChrisR

Have never come across any severe problems being caused by Inhibitors, not even theoretical ones during training sessions. Would be awfully obliged Chris if you can tell me what problems you have seen occur with inhibitors as it will help enormously with my work.

I stand by my claim that all inhibitors are much of a muchness (as they are all, pretty much, composed of the same chemicals)

I do, and this is more like the norm, agree strongly with ChrisR about cleansers, flushers and de scalers and be warned they can cause extreme problems if they are not applied correctly

 

[ChrisR]

SOme of the cheap inhibitors (of a few years ago) causes a lot of problems with existing sludge so things gunge up quickly. I think I know who the main culprit was - and probably still is- but it wasn't actually publlished by the chemist (independent) who did the tests a the time. Unfortunaltely little has been tested properly. There are something like 2 dozen chemicals in Fernox MB-1. I bet there aren't in many of the others.

Most rely on molybdates for passivation, though some just shift the pH apparently.

There was the problem with fernox making honeywell's balls go large and soft a few years ago. F man told me quietly that was put right by "continuing product development"! (Which continues)

Fernox manufacture eg Wickes inhibitor, but freely admit it ain't the same as MB-1.

One of the panel's contributors won't use MB-1 anymore - perhaps he'll chime in. I don't use it mostly because I refuse to buy water and lug it about, though I think they do a 1 litre pot now.

 

[corgiman]

Well I stand corrected

Thanks ChrisR you are indeed the font of all knowledge

Seriously I did not know that as I have always used either sentinal or fernox so that has never been a problem to me

I spoke to fernox ealier today and they assured me that their ihibitor was inert and would in no way react with any metal found within a central heating system.

 

[AlanE]

I will confirm the comments Chris made Fernox did cause major problems when it reacted with the rubber balls in Honeywell valves.

It is also a known problem that some inhibiters caused O ring swelling etc in Vaillant combi diverter valves.

Alan

 

[Softus]

I will confirm the comments Chris made Fernox did cause major problems when it reacted with the rubber balls in Honeywell valves.

In that case I suggest that you return those rubber balls for a refund, on the basis of the following:

Subject: RE: Fernox and compatible materials
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:42:36 +0100

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for your email regarding compatibility of push-fit O rings and Honeywell motorized valves.

We can confirm that all Fernox Protector and Restorer products are fully compatible with push fit fittings and also Honeywell motorized valves.

We trust you will find this information of help and assistance.

Kind regards,

(name withheld)

 

[corgiman]

I will confirm the comments Chris made Fernox did cause major problems when it reacted with the rubber balls in Honeywell valves.

In that case I suggest that you return those rubber balls for a refund, on the basis of the following:

Subject: RE: Fernox and compatible materials
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:42:36 +0100

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for your email regarding compatibility of push-fit O rings and Honeywell motorized valves.

We can confirm that all Fernox Protector and Restorer products are fully compatible with push fit fittings and also Honeywell motorized valves.

We trust you will find this information of help and assistance.

Kind regards,

(name withheld)

nicley done soft

but he posted this 3 years ago

Blimey you wouldnt let it lie

 

[namsag]

Softus they have cleverly worded there reply to you by mentioning 2 products that have not been out that long i notice they don`t say Mb1 mb2 or any other of the older fernox products. Wait for reply from honeywell

 

[JohnD]

I used to have fernox MB1, my rubber ball swelled up and I had a new valve fitted, the guy blamed the MB1 and recommended Sentinel in future.

This was some years ago and I believe the forumula has been fixed now.

Ha ha, yes, very amusing about the ball.

 

[gas4you]

Even my balls have swelled over the last 3 years and not for the good either Think I can get a refund

 

[Softus]

but he posted this 3 years ago

Oh boll*cks.

Softus they have cleverly worded there reply to you by mentioning 2 products that have not been out that long i notice they don`t say Mb1 mb2 or any other of the older fernox products.

I suspect you might be being a tad cynical there, but I'll ask them if any of their older products had a problem.

BTW, I didn't think that "Protector" is that new a product.

However, I now notice that the data sheets show that MB-1 and Protector have different constituents, so I'll go back with more questions.

Wait for reply from honeywell

They're first reply to me was that their computer was down and they couldn't find the relevant part number, so yes, I'm still waiting...

 

[croydoncorgi]

I STILL believe there is an 'unknown, unknown' problem with inhibitors (in the Donald Rumsfeld sense - if you fail to recognise the existence of a problem, then you don't have to worry about it! If you make or sell inhibitor chemicals, that is).

I have had at least 2 instances of a new combi boiler on an old system of pipes and rads which HAD been powerflushed, fitted with a Magnaclean and treated with the right concentration of inhibitor, yet a few months later 'tea leaves' of magnetite caused problems in the secondary heat exchanger. In one case there was also a gauze filter on the boiler Return connection and the 'tea leaves' were LARGER than the holes in the gauze.

Go figure!

It's my belief that under certain conditions, dissolved iron in the water CAN plate-out as magnetite onto surfaces inside the boiler, then detach as flakes. These conditions may (or may not!) include temperature cycling (eg. as water circulates around from primary to secondary HX), even in presence of or EVEN because of inhibitor, and perhaps only plating onto plastic surfaces.

But it would need major research effort to check this and I don't think anyone is even considering it.

 

[ChrisR]

No question about that happening. Last I remember the guy at Kamco was going to analyse the flakes.