Boiler I. D. For high reading on analysers | Boilers | Page 2 | Plumbers Forums
  • Welcome to PlumbersTalk.net

    Welcome to Plumbers' Talk | The new domain for UKPF / Plumbers Forums. Login with your existing details they should all work fine. Please checkout the PT Updates Forum

Welcome to the forum. Although you can post in any forum, the USA forum is here in case of local regs or laws

American Visitor?

Hey friend, we're detecting that you're an American visitor and want to thank you for coming to PlumbersTalk.net - Here is a link to the American Plumbing Forum. Though if you post in any other forum from your computer / phone it'll be marked with a little american flag so that other users can help from your neck of the woods. We hope this helps. And thanks once again.

Discuss Boiler I. D. For high reading on analysers in the Boilers area at Plumbers Forums

So if a fan flue'd room sealed boiler was giving a CO/CO2 ratio of 0.008 or above this would still be immediately dangerous? With a reading between 0.004 and 0.007 would be an at risk situation? The GIUSP was a good, informative read thanks.

I would say it would be AR above 0.008 and AR for your others. It just states unsatisfactory ratio’s is AR for flued appliance, doesn’t quote any ratio.
 
If technically not ID it's a seriously poorly boiler and I'd want to cap it.
Remember the regs are just guidelines really and you cant get in too much trouble for being careful, categorise it as you like. ID for me, for a fault I haven't found - but is definitely there.

You cant just categorise as you like. An AR is an AR you cant ID it just because because you haven't found the fault, you find the fault and categorise accordingly.

When I reset my acs there was a section about unsafe procedures and you would of failed it.

Bad advice in my view.
 
If technically not ID it's a seriously poorly boiler and I'd want to cap it.
Remember the regs are just guidelines really and you cant get in too much trouble for being careful, categorise it as you like. ID for me, for a fault I haven't found - but is definitely there.

I dont know you,Knapper, so I mean no direct disrespect. Too many reach for the cap kit, just to CYA. We are, generally, reasonaby apid professionals - and should take the job seriously. That includes having the confidence to follow the rules, but to be able to work out the problem. You should not ID a boiler if it is "poorly" - only if there IS an "immediate danger".

And you are wrong - if you wrongly, say, deprive a tenant of heat and HW you could end up being sued, although I cannot say that has ever happened. But if I was the said tenants were my kids or elderly parents in law, I can promise you that you would know about it.
 
I'm not a cap it and leave kinda guy.
In retrospect my advice was bad and was probably thinking of the badly corroded boiler with holes all over it as detailed above.
As a self employed engineer I have much more control over my jobs and asses them all on their own merit.
If just poor combustion on an otherwise healthy looking boiler then I'd work until the issue was resolved and failing that I'd decide how to categorise it based on it's own merit.
If the boiler was in poor condition and not a lifeline to an elderly or infirm customer then I'd easily find good reason to ID it for compounding issues (like corrosion). The poor combustion is just an alarm to prompt further investigation.
In practice on an AR boiler that I've arranged to replace I'd give the customer the warning notice and then tell them it's ok to use - but then id fail my ACS for that too!
I do get a bee in my bonnet about applying the regs to the letter and like to use my own judgement in the grey areas, I was a commercial engineer and perhaps making judgement calls is more necessary in that sector?
 
I think the AR/ID classification is too similar in practice, AR wording should make it more acceptable to use the appliance as youd struggle to find a responsible user that would discern any difference between the two, the main difference being that the irresponsible user is unable to use a capped ID appliance?.....
 
"At risk" is a strange term, at risk of what, who, when?

In my opinion it should be something like

"potentially dangerous, use at your own risk"

Then a disclaimer something like

"The engineer who attended to this boiler has found potentially hazardous elements. This gas appliance should be repaired as soon as possible as it may develop into a more serious problem"

Immediately dangerous is self explanatory and could even be labelled

"This is a dangerous gas appliance and has been isolated from the gas supply for your safety"

I'm lucky in that I generally work for regulars but if your working on large contracts, for the council for example, I bet you get some very awkward situations.

Its bad enough just trying to explain how a filling loop works! :p
 
Not flueless, open flued such as a back boiler.

Where does it show this in current GIUSP? All I found was I've quoted?

45A966AC-34D1-4D70-9CF8-BBE975769290.jpeg
 
I think the AR/ID classification is too similar in practice, AR wording should make it more acceptable to use the appliance .
The change was brought about because the Coroner said that AR should be treated as more serious than was the case. If you read his statement, I think he meant that EVERYTHING we consider AR or ID should be ID. His proposals were watered down somewhat
 
The change was brought about because the Coroner said that AR should be treated as more serious than was the case. If you read his statement, I think he meant that EVERYTHING we consider AR or ID should be ID. His proposals were watered down somewhat

What they should of done was put it like an mot fail or advisory but as usual gas safe messed it up.
 
It was condemned the gas was capped off. After also seeing the flue on that one I didn't and advised on a new boiler. The landlord has other boilers that have been condemned/capped for high emissions were the flues are not corrode though.
 
It was condemned the gas was capped off. After also seeing the flue on that one I didn't and advised on a new boiler. The landlord has other boilers that have been condemned/capped for high emissions were the flues are not corrode though.
I Have another one to look at with a high reading but the flue isn't totally corroded. So will be investigating the cause on this.
 
"At risk" is a strange term, at risk of what, who, when?

Too many think it means "At Risk of something in the far future when there could be a yellow moon, but basically I don't like the look of it, and don't have the confidence to decide I can leave it running, rather than risk hypothermia".
 
The boiler that I swapped had a ratio of 0.0092. And 678 Co ppm reading. With these kind of readings I presume it rules out a good clean of the burner etc, would fix?
 
The boiler that I swapped had a ratio of 0.0092. And 678 Co ppm reading. With these kind of readings I presume it rules out a good clean of the burner etc, would fix?

Not necessarily, I don’t get too many with high readings and they usually just want adjusting. In your instance though they may need a thorough investigation or new boiler?
 
Sorry to add to this thread again. I spoke to an older gas engineer about these boilers being condemned for high analayser readings. Alpha he 25s. He stated on a boiler of this age you don't need to analyse them when doing a landlord check. Anyone agree with this?
 

Similar plumbing topics

Looking at those working gas pressures and the...
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Locked
It’s probably not mate,as long as your doing...
Replies
18
Views
443
L
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Locked
No. Surely not. That would be... deceitful!
Replies
5
Views
1K
Ray Stafford
R
  • Locked
Well done subby. It will be the first of many...
Replies
12
Views
251
Back
Top