reg

Thanks for that write up, very useful. I have heard others suggest pipe compound but maybe you could tell me Is it difficult to undo the joint afterwards? That's my main concern with using it as I'm already working blind and at full stretch fitting it together so have a preference for ease of disassembly. Mind you a gaurernteed leak proof joint would override that preference methinks.

Here are the parts (From Screwfix) Must admit I wasn't aware of running brass nipples, knowledge gained albeit belatedly.

Wondered even that would be asked.

I have fiited a new 3 bar PRV for my calorifier. In order to fit it I had to use a 3/4 inch to 1/2 reducer and then a 1/2 male/male nipple in order to fit it. I have done a test assembly to ensure everything fits mechanically, this was OK. I now need to do a final assembly but have read conflicting advice on the best practice for sealing the mating surfaces. So my question is basically what is the best practice for these sort of connections? .Flat washer? If so what material? .Ptfe tape? I've read some comments saying no to this. .Liquid PTFE? .One of the above or a combination? Again looking for best practice on this. Appreciate any help, thanks.

...... Removed irrelevant comment.

Flexible panel life previously discussed here My experience with Unisolar panels is very positive, these are the high quality flexible panels. Unfortunately the company went into liquidation a good few years ago. I was very fortunate to get 2 of the liquidated USA stock and a verY decent price. Midsummer recognised the gap in the market left by the liquidation and, in my opinion, admirably managed to track down the manufacturers and/or suppliers so that these would not be lost to the market. This was as I understand the genesis for the CIGS Panels. The only Downside I can see is the lower output per surface area this is more than mitigated by the lack of obstruction on the roof which is of great benefit when locking. My autocorrect seems to insist that they are also of benefit when licking. I have no evidence of this.

This confirms the statement made here "... If the Zinga layer is sufficiently damaged to expose the base metal below, the steel would form a layer of surface rust but no corrosion would take place beneath it. In other words if the surface discolouration was removed the steel below would not be pitted or eroded. This is called "throw" and enables Zinga to protect bare metal up to 3 - 5mm or so away from where the coating ends...." From https://zinga-uk.com/zinga/how-zinga-works

Then please feel free to refer to it as a paint I'm sure the world will carry on regardless. End of subject as far as I'm concerned.

Follow the link I gave Zinga is an active zinc performance coating which works in conjunction with the metal beneath where as paints are only passive barriers.

Thanks. I'll give the direct Zinga link again and part of their direct quote https://zinga-uk.com/zinga "BUT... Zinga is not a paint!" End of quote. I believe that a number of suppliers refer to it as paint even thought Zinga try to discourage it. In the real world think it is probably easier to just to refer to it as a paint when dealing with a customer rather than get into an involved discussion on what it actually is. Professionals will probably understand that it isn't a paint. for everyone else as long as the instructions are followed then thinking of it as a paint doesn't really matter.

Do you have a source for this? I suspect it isn't from the Zinga site. Thanks

I think you will find they are at great pains to show that it is not a paint. To quote directly, and using their own emphasis, from their site " Zinga is a unique form of corrosion protection because it provides both Active and Passive protection in a form that's as easy to apply as a paint... BUT... Zinga is not a paint! Zinga is an active zinc performance coating which works in conjunction with the metal beneath where as paints are only passive barriers. Regardless of how thick paints are applied, they remain as barriers. Once they are breached corrosion sets in immediately. Despite this significant difference Zinga is still often mistaken for a paint simply because it's liquid and comes in a tin. But there are other more subtle differences. For example it does not "skin over" in the tin because Zinga has an unlimited pot-life and it doesn't go "tacky" like a paint https://zinga-uk.com/zinga

Zinga isn't paint.

If you can afford the upfront capital costs then I would say it is well worth doing. Long term savings on repeated blackings and also, in my experience, no need for anodes so further savings there. Had mine out of the water after 6 years and found minimal cosmetic touch up required to the blacking. I would also argue that it adds value to the boat so even if you don't keep the boat you have still got value from doing it. It is absolutely essential that the Zinga is applied to a correctly prepared surface.

I use a mix of all of the above. The only one missing from the list for me is Tom Sapeys Open Canal Map App

Can I ask 1 What does a service entail? 2 Can I do it myself? 3 if no to 2 then can I do a partial service myself ? Edit to add Partial answering my own question. I found this potentially useful link to a pdf. https://www.fullfatrr.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11242/Servicing a Webasto Thermo Top C Diesel Boiler.pdf I hadn't tried this yet so can't really comment at this time on its accuracy.

I find there is an acceptable level of cracking once it starts to reach an unacceptable level them only then will I consider replacing it. Yours appears to have a lower level of cracking if you replace it then very soon there is a strong possibility that the new one will also show some cracking. Obviously you are in charge if your own budget so it's your chose. Personally I think in 16 years of use I've only done, as far as I can remember, a full replacement once or maybe twice maximum. A tub of fire cement can save you a great deal of money over the years. Edit Found this link which gives you all the info https://www.stovespareparts.com/stove-maintenance-advice/check-the-fire-bricks Note this part "... Fire bricks only need replacing if damage to them begins to expose the stove's bodywork to flames. In severe cases of prolonged exposure this could permanently damage the stove by cracking a cast iron side panel or warping the steel bodywork. Where clay fire bricks are cracked their lifespan can be prolonged by filling the cracked joints with fire cement – this is perfectly acceptable practice and nearly all manufacturers recommend this...."

Just might do that instead of playing very bad chess.

Certainly not a priority but on checking links connections for a specific link found many out of date and redundant links. Maybe needs, much like my boat, a jolly good clean up. Probably a priority one task.

Simple job just make sure the part of the base they sit on is reasonably clear and the top baffle plate is sits correctly on the side brick edges. Easy to work out when you are doing it.

Correct Certainly worth clarifying that point that it was the bricks that were plastered. When I referred to the replacing the back plate I should of made it clear that I was doing the plastering as part of the job of replacing the blanking plate on the backplate.

Do the same only replaced them once in 16 years and then only because I was replacing a back plate. I did worry about the cracked bricks when I first started but that soon wore off after a little reading.

Aware of that but I don't want you increase panel area which is why I might be interested anything that has the potential to give any gain for the same panel area. Edit to add Research is getting near to the 30% mark. https://newatlas.com/energy/tandem-silicon-perovskite-solar-cells-record-efficiency/ Not sure if I will still be around when it becomes commercially available though. Also aware that in the exotic area of space research 30% has been achieved some time ago but these are slightly beyond a practical budget.

Some good info and explanations here, thanks. Would be nice if anyone has any practical experience of these but I think that probably requires its own thread rather than have it buried deep in this one. My current setup gives more than adequate for most of the year but often in winter just falls short of providing a high enough voltage to do any charging. My thinking is that even a marginal percentage improvement may just give an extra hour or 2 of charge in winter. Without side by side comparison it's unclear whether this could be achieved. Anyway it will have to, fir me, remain speculation at the moment as changing out to find out makes no economic sense. Appreciate all the inputs.

Thanks for that. Might work in my case as I have a mat white roof, primarily to reduce winter glare, and also I only have 2 largish panels at the front end of the roof which gives me circa 60% clear roof space. I'm not sure if it is currenyky worth it financially to swap these 2 out for the bifacial but if I ever do need to then the bifacial would certainly be a strong contender mainly for the better low light performance in winter.