Can one temporarily short out, with a pipe, the central heating circuit of
a combination boiler, so that I can get the DHW working first, and do the
central heating later?    Clearly in summer the hot water will work OK with
the central heating not working.

The cylinder has to go first before I can fit the combination boiler, can
be fitted.

-- 
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> 
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.

At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
to superheated water ( > 100C).

What boiler is it?

Matt Beard wrote:

> At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
> used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
> nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
> wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
> to superheated water ( > 100C).
>
> What boiler is it?


Check the instructions. If the boiler already has a automatic bypass,
then it should be ok to isolate the radiator circuit. Otherwise just
install the bypass across flow/return and isolate the circuit below it.

On 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, "Matt Beard"  wrote:

| At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
| used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
| nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
| wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
| to superheated water ( > 100C).
| 
| What boiler is it?

Not chosen it yet.

-- 
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> 
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.

In message , Matt 
Beard  writes

>At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
>used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
>nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
>wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
>to superheated water ( > 100C).
>
>What boiler is it?
>

If you don't know, don't guess

-- 
geoff

In message , Dave Fawthrop 
 writes

>Can one temporarily short out, with a pipe, the central heating circuit of
>a combination boiler, so that I can get the DHW working first, and do the
>central heating later?    Clearly in summer the hot water will work OK with
>the central heating not working.
>
>The cylinder has to go first before I can fit the combination boiler, can
>be fitted.
>

No, not usually, but then you didn't say what boiler it is

Most combi boilers expect to see pressure in the central heating circuit 
as this is what is directly heated - which then heats the hot water



-- 
geoff

In message , Dave Fawthrop 
 writes

>On 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, "Matt Beard"  wrote:
>
>| At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
>| used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
>| nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
>| wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
>| to superheated water ( > 100C).
>|
>| What boiler is it?
>
>Not chosen it yet.
>

In that case I very much doubt that there are any condensing boilers 
which will allow DHW without there being pressure in the CH circuit

-- 
geoff

Permission to breathe, Your Holiness?

In message , Matt 
Beard  writes

>Permission to breathe, Your Holiness?
>

Were you replying to me ?

Since you snipped everything, nobody has a clue what you're referring to

-- 
geoff

>>Permission to breathe, Your Holiness?
>
>Were you replying to me ?
>
>Since you snipped everything, nobody has a clue what you're referring to


Please refrain from posting until you know how to construct a
grammatically correct sentence. You ended your previous effort with a
preposition.

Alternatively, calm down, take a few deep breaths and realise that you
are not the moderator of this group and don't have a God given right to
criticise other people's posting style.

In message , Matt 
Beard  writes

>>>Permission to breathe, Your Holiness?
>>
>>Were you replying to me ?
>>
>>Since you snipped everything, nobody has a clue what you're referring to
>
>Please refrain from posting until you know how to construct a
>grammatically correct sentence. You ended your previous effort with a
>preposition.
>
>Alternatively, calm down, take a few deep breaths and realise that you
>are not the moderator of this group and don't have a God given right to
>criticise other people's posting style.
>


Whether I say "what you're referring to" or "to what you're referring" 
is irrelevant. I put it in that form for a bit of emphasis and it's 
common usage, correct or not

It's quite simple, and basic newsgroup netiquette - if you snip the post 
to which you are referring, nobody knows what you're on about

Google and newsgroup netiquette are that way ------------->
go and have a look


But then, since what your reply to the OP was completely and absolutely 
wrong, it's prolly a bit much expecting you to take such things on 
board.

kissy kissy

-- 
geoff

>Google and newsgroup netiquette are that way ------------->
>go and have a look


You think so?

It was google that did the snipping - not me!

In article , 
spam@mxf.org.uk says...

> >Google and newsgroup netiquette are that way ------------->
> >go and have a look
> 
> You think so?
> 
> It was google that did the snipping - not me!
> 
> 

It's a bad workman who blames his tools ...

In article , Matt Beard
<URL:mailto:spam@mxf.org.uk> wrote:


> It was google that did the snipping - not me!

 
Well if Google is so obviously broken, why not use a proper newsreader?
Perhaps that's too easy? 

-- 
AJL

> > It was google that did the snipping - not me!

>Well if Google is so obviously broken, why not use a proper newsreader?
>Perhaps that's too easy?


I'm not saying it's broken - just that it snips automatically. raden
claimed it quoted correctly.

I use Google because I read and post from a number of machines and
locations - and only to a couple of newsgroups. It suits me fine.

>> It was google that did the snipping - not me!

>It's a bad workman who blames his tools ...


That may be true - however I wasn't blaming the tool. raden claimed
that Google correctly quoted the related post - I was proving that it
didn't.

Matt Beard wrote:

> >> It was google that did the snipping - not me!
>
> >It's a bad workman who blames his tools ...
>
> That may be true - however I wasn't blaming the tool. raden claimed
> that Google correctly quoted the related post - I was proving that it
> didn't.


You mean like this?  It seems to work for me.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:


> At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
> used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
> nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
> wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
> to superheated water ( > 100C).
> 
> What boiler is it?


I'd check with the manufacturers, (of course).

To be on the safe side a couple of
temporary connection to a temporary radiator should probably do the trick.



-- 
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk 
Gas fitting FAQ  http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Rob Morley wrote:

> Matt Beard wrote:
> > >> It was google that did the snipping - not me!
> >
> > >It's a bad workman who blames his tools ...
> >
> > That may be true - however I wasn't blaming the tool. raden claimed
> > that Google correctly quoted the related post - I was proving that it
> > didn't.
>
> You mean like this?  It seems to work for me.


It depends which of the two "Reply" links you click - my point was that
you can't rely on Google to quote for you (it only seems to do that if
you select "show options" first then hit the first "Reply")

Ed Sirett wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:
>
> > At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
> > used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
> > nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
> > wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
> > to superheated water ( > 100C).
> >
> > What boiler is it?
>
> I'd check with the manufacturers, (of course).
>
> To be on the safe side a couple of
> temporary connection to a temporary radiator should probably do the trick.
>


I'd be careful if I were you - I gave an almost identical answer and
got right royally jumped on for giving an answer that was not 100%
copper bottomed guaranteed to be correct.

Matt Beard wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > Matt Beard wrote:
> > > >> It was google that did the snipping - not me!
> > >
> > > >It's a bad workman who blames his tools ...
> > >
> > > That may be true - however I wasn't blaming the tool. raden claimed
> > > that Google correctly quoted the related post - I was proving that it
> > > didn't.
> >
> > You mean like this?  It seems to work for me.
>
> It depends which of the two "Reply" links you click - my point was that
> you can't rely on Google to quote for you (it only seems to do that if
> you select "show options" first then hit the first "Reply")


Or hit the bottom Reply button, then Preview, then Edit Message - it
does say BETA in the logo at the top of the page  :-)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:14:38 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:


> 
> Ed Sirett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:
>>
>> > At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
>> > used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
>> > nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
>> > wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
>> > to superheated water ( > 100C).
>> >
>> > What boiler is it?
>>
>> I'd check with the manufacturers, (of course).
>>
>> To be on the safe side a couple of
>> temporary connections to a temporary radiator should probably do the
>> trick.
>>
>>
> I'd be careful if I were you - I gave an almost identical answer and got
> right royally jumped on for giving an answer that was not 100% copper
> bottomed guaranteed to be correct.


I have run a (Vaillant) combi without the rads for a day, just using the
flow/return isolators shutoff. This allowed me to get the customer's hot
water back on at the end of the first day's work. 

I was very careful to  make sure that the air was well out of the boiler,
it was  considerable noiser as there was no where for the small air
bubble to escape to. 

If anyone does this and they damage their nice new boiler then it's
nothing to do with me.


-- 
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk 
Gas fitting FAQ  http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:59:20 +0100, Ed Sirett 
wrote:

| On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:14:38 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:
| 
| > 
| > Ed Sirett wrote:
| >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:32:45 -0700, Matt Beard wrote:
| >>
| >> > At a guess I would think that most would cope fine as long as that pipe
| >> > used to short the circuit had a radiator in it. I would think that
| >> > nasty things could happen if it is just a short bit of pipe - it
| >> > wouldn't take much for the boiler firing the heating circuit up to lead
| >> > to superheated water ( > 100C).
| >> >
| >> > What boiler is it?
| >>
| >> I'd check with the manufacturers, (of course).
| >>
| >> To be on the safe side a couple of
| >> temporary connections to a temporary radiator should probably do the
| >> trick.
| >>
| >>
| > I'd be careful if I were you - I gave an almost identical answer and got
| > right royally jumped on for giving an answer that was not 100% copper
| > bottomed guaranteed to be correct.
| 
| I have run a (Vaillant) combi without the rads for a day, just using the
| flow/return isolators shutoff. This allowed me to get the customer's hot
| water back on at the end of the first day's work. 
| 
| I was very careful to  make sure that the air was well out of the boiler,
| it was  considerable noiser as there was no where for the small air
| bubble to escape to. 
| 
| If anyone does this and they damage their nice new boiler then it's
| nothing to do with me.

OK OK.  Plans have changed.  I am re-routing  the central heating pipes
first, so they can be just connected to the new boiler when it arrives.

-- 
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> 
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.