Netaheat 10/16E gas valve

[Cooderkey]

You know nothing at all about this particular boiler installation, and you may be generalising, but to cast aspersions on the quality of the work, or the standard or condition of the plumber's electronic equipment is totally uncalled for.

Maybe your engineer failed to explain what the efficiency #s relate to when using a FGA , these boilers were somewhere in the region of around 70% efficient , this was a result of the cast iron heat exchanger coupled with the low CO2 due to shed loads of excess air in POCs.

Thank you for your pleasant response. Well your figure of ' somewhere in the region of 70%,' is a lot better than the 55% that was given out on this forum, by one of the ' experts.' It is also closer to the 78% given in the manufacturer's manual. ( Which is where I extracted my figure from). It appears that everyone is an expert. I can only offer the figures from the manual, and the figures given to me by my gas fitter. He told me that the boiler was quite efficient, and the figure he gave was definitely 80%. I don't know how his very expensive looking bit of kit works, but I assume that some organisation checks his work from time to time. I have an electrician who does work for me from time to time, and I know that his equipment and work are checked and have to pass a set standard. Surely the gas industry has something similar?

 

[Dan Robinson]

But his 80% figure was meaningless in this context.

 

[gaswizzard]

The sedbuk assessment takes account of more realistic conditions, but it's hard to see how this could drop to 65%.

So Chris's figure above, of ' notional efficincy is about 77%, tally's as near as dammit to the figures in my manual. ( 78% ).

The gross caloirific value of a fuel is defined on the basis that all of the water vapour produced by its complete combustion is subsequently converted into the liquid state , not the case for a netaheat , soooo , the 78% gross efficiency actually equates in real terms to around 69% net efficiency , this figure is based on calculations to which I won't bore you with the details , certainly not plucked out of a hat.

Feel free to ask your heating man.

 

[Cooderkey]

You know nothing at all about this particular boiler installation, and you may be generalising, but to cast aspersions on the quality of the work, or the standard or condition of the plumber's electronic equipment is totally uncalled for.

It appears we know more than you though doesn't it?

Seriously dude... you're onto a loser her. there is nothing wrong with keeping your old boiler going... just do so as part of an INFORMED decision using information that is correct.

80%

It's not a case of ' We know more than you.' That is such a childish remark. I posted a note about what happened to my boiler, and how it was repaired, and now works efficiently. The figures I gave about it's original stated ' efficiency ' came from the Potterton Manual. I didn't make them up or quote a figure that was totally unrelated to the boiler in question. I again quoted the information given by the gas fitter. I thought my post would be useful for people experiencing difficulties with a boiler similar to mine. As you will see from a couple of posts, there are other people on here, who agree a figure of 70% or more efficiency. Now whatever bones you decide to pick about ' this efficiency ' or ' that efficiency,' I can only suggest, that, ' No, it doesn't appear that you know more than me.' I am not a dude, but there again you wouldn't understand as your ignorance is still showing through.

 

[Cooderkey]

The sedbuk assessment takes account of more realistic conditions, but it's hard to see how this could drop to 65%.

So Chris's figure above, of ' notional efficincy is about 77%, tally's as near as dammit to the figures in my manual. ( 78% ).

The gross caloirific value of a fuel is defined on the basis that all of the water vapour produced by its complete combustion is subsequently converted into the liquid state , not the case for a netaheat , soooo , the 78% gross efficiency actually equates in real terms to around 69% net efficiency , this figure is based on calculations to which I won't bore you with the details , certainly not plucked out of a hat.

Feel free to ask your heating man.

Thanks again, but still NOT 55%.

 

[Dan Robinson]

K

 

[gaswizzard]

Thanks again, but still NOT 55%.

.........and not quite 80%.

 

[Cooderkey]

Thanks again, but still NOT 55%.

.........and not quite 80%.

True, but closer.
I'm happy with the reply and the explanation.

 

[Cooderkey]

K

If we ever met, we'd probably be friends.
Best regards. Cooder.

 

[gaswizzard]

And I'm happy that we are all happy.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I am genuinely happy that your boiler is repaired and working well. We have some venerable old boilers - including Netaheats - that we maintain every year. You have spurred me into looking for the oldest boiler on our books...

Like I said - just want to you be correctly informed. Your guy is obviously well meaning - but doesn't understand his equipment.

A hot debate currently raging is the new requirement to have a qualification in the use of these analysers. It is just a shame that the standard of training for this qualification is going to lead to more misinformation like this.

 

[Cooderkey]

And I'm happy that we are all happy.

Oh Yes, me too. At 71 years of age, arguments upset my blood pressure, and make me feel unwell. Thanks again for your response. If ever my gas fitter emigrates, I'll move your name up the list.

 

[gaswizzard]

If ever my gas fitter emigrates, I'll move your name up the list.

Well thanks very much , would Dan be on the list too?


Just kidding.

 

[Dan Robinson]

 

[nickso]

You know nothing at all about this particular boiler installation, and you may be generalising, but to cast aspersions on the quality of the work, or the standard or condition of the plumber's electronic equipment is totally uncalled for.

Maybe your engineer failed to explain what the efficiency #s relate to when using a FGA , these boilers were somewhere in the region of around 70% efficient , this was a result of the cast iron heat exchanger coupled with the low CO2 due to shed loads of excess air in POCs.

Thank you for your pleasant response. Well your figure of ' somewhere in the region of 70%,' is a lot better than the 55% that was given out on this forum, by one of the ' experts.' It is also closer to the 78% given in the manufacturer's manual. ( Which is where I extracted my figure from). It appears that everyone is an expert. I can only offer the figures from the manual, and the figures given to me by my gas fitter. He told me that the boiler was quite efficient, and the figure he gave was definitely 80%. I don't know how his very expensive looking bit of kit works, but I assume that some organisation checks his work from time to time. I have an electrician who does work for me from time to time, and I know that his equipment and work are checked and have to pass a set standard. Surely the gas industry has something similar?

You are still missing the point on two issues.

First I believe, without being arsed to check, Agile gave you the 55% figure. This was your first mistake. Ignore this buffoon.

Second, the figure quoted by your fitter is, as others have highlighted, a completely different reading based on something he probably doesn't understand.

To put it closer, but by no means in a definitve manner: Two boilers both running combustion efficiency figures of 90%. Boiler A uses 100Ft3 of gas to heat a jacket of water to 75 degrees. Boiler B uses 1Ft3 to heat a jacket of water to 75 degrees. Which is more efficient?