anhar

I am considering this as one possible answer to my problem Chris, with Richard's idea of repositioning the PRV as another. Anyway, reading your above advice on a second accumulator I don't understand one point. You say its pressure needs to be above that of the pump cut-out and below that of the PRV. The reason for the latter is clear but if it is set above the pump cut-out then how can the pump deliver cold water to the cal? It means the pressure on the hot side of the non return valve will be higher than the maximum pressure the pump can deliver, consequently how can the pump pressure open the NRV to permit the cold feed into the cal? I know I'm probably missing something here but that's because my knowledge of these things can be written in block capitals on the head of a pin. Steve

Thanks Richard. I'll give your idea some thought. It sounds good, if you are right about the problem. With my solution, you're right there probably still would be a very slight leak but hopefully only a fraction of the considerable dribble I have now. There wouldn't be any danger with the NRV sticking because in that case the water would simply be expelled through the PRV holes as it is now. regards Steve

I think Richard was suggesting that the water in the pipe leaks out on the non pressure side of the valve and through the exit holes in it. Does that make sense Allan? I really don't understand much about this at all. Steve

I wasn't sure my pump was higher pressure than the PRV but was basing this on your earlier suggestion that the pump cut off was typically 30psi. Went to the boat today and I've now checked it. Written on it is "Shut off pressure set (adjustable) at 20psi". Incidentally there is no mention of the cut in pressure. Since the PRV is 29psi, there is no problem from that direction. I then checked the accumulator pressure with the system depressurised. It was 13psi. I understand this needs to be below the pump cut in pressure but I don't know the latter. Guessing that it might be 2/3 of the cut out pressure, ie. 13-14psi, I dropped it slightly to 11psi. I haven't yet checked whether this will cure my PRV hot leak but my guess is it won't because there doesn't appear to have been an excessive pressure in the accumulator. Richard's guess at what is wrong seems to my ignorant mind to be the most likely - namely that water standing in the very long upward vent tube is leaking back through the PRV seal. However it does mean that your earlier suggestion of a second accumulator to absorb all the hot water expansion and thereby prevent it going through the PRV is now feasible. regards Steve

The problem though may well be Keith, as Richard suggested, that it isn't the direct pressure of water straight from the cal. that is opening the PRV, rather it may be the weight of water in my two foot plus upward vent pipe that is leaking back through the PRV seal. If that's the case, then fitting a higher pressure PRV won't help. In any event I have no idea what the rating of the cal. may be so I can't just fit a higher pressure PRV. Don't want to blow up just yet! regards Steve

Yes I wondered about that if as you say 30psi is the pump cut out pressure but I must check it to be sure. I think it happens only when hot which implies the pump cut out pressure is below 29psi but I'm not totally certain though. Next time I'm at the boat I'll check to see if it happens cold. What do you think of Richard's suggestion that it is the weight of the water sitting in my lengthy upward vent pipe that is leaking back through the seal rather than directly expelled hot water? And of my idea of fitting a non return valve in the pipe to prevent it? Steve

Great idea Richard, thanks. It wasn't so bleedin' obvious to me! I should point out that I'm no DIYer, especially plumbing, so that sticking a non return valve into the vent pipe I might just be able to do because it is push fit plastic fittings. But moving the PRV etc. I'm not sure I can handle that myself because it is copper connections and involves direct fitting to the tank which I just know is gonna leak afterwards if I try it. I suppose I could get someone to do it for me, for a price of course. Why do you think moving the PRV higher up is a better approach than my idea of a NRV in the vent pipe? My solution seems a lot less work and cheaper too. Do you think my idea will work okay in that the expelled water would be able to pass through the NRV? I need to know if an NRV offers any resistance in its single flow direction and if so whether that resistance will be overcome by the escaping hot water released by the PRV which it needs to do in order to be expelled overboard. Thanks Chris regards Steve

I have a Hurricane too but no, it is not that which is causing the problem, it is whenever the cal. is heated by any method and needs to expel surplus heated expanded water, whether it was heated by the engine or the ch. or I expect the immersion heater but I've have not used that yet. You may be right Richard in which case there is no easy solution. And it points to poor installation in having the PRV at the bottom of the cal. instead of the top. Actually you've just given me an idea. What if I installed a non return valve in the vent pipe immediately above its join with the PRV connection if possible (see pictures)? Wouldn't that stop the water in the pipe falling back through the PRV seal if that is the problem as you suggest? Do NR valves require high pressure to force water through them in their flow direction, in other words would an NRV impede the water being driven up the pipe in the first place? If not I'll give this idea a go. And therein lies a problem with having an additional accumulator on the cal. Chris. My PRV says it is 2 bar, about 29psi. If the pump cut out pressure is as you suggest 30psi, which I haven't checked yet, I can't set the second accumulator pressure above the pump cut out pressure and below the PRV pressure! Steve

Thanks Richard. Yes the fact that the vent pipe is up, and long - over two feet - doesn't help any. But I'm stuck with that because my PRV and vent pipe are located at the bottom of the calorifier as shown in the pictures. What happens is that when the cal. gets hot the PRV dribbles, enough to cause quite a puddle after a day's cruising or when the central heating boiler is on to heat the water. Only when it's hot though, it doesn't dribble when cold which suggests the valve or seal isn't faulty in the sense of letting a pipeful of water drip out but instead, it is the water expansion on heating the cal. which appears to be taking the path of least resistance. But the valve shouldn't be that path, it should be the pipe. So I figure that assuming the PRV is not faulty, though I'm not sure of that, the 2 bar pressure (about 29 psi) required to open the PRV is less than the pressure required to drive the heated expanding water up the pipe and that means a poor installation. In which case I can't see much option other than Chris's suggestion of a second accumulator purely to deal with hot water expansion in the cal. After writing the above I had the idea of trying a higher pressure PRV than the 2 bar one I have, if such is available. But that may be too high for the safety of the cal. though I don't know how to establish that. Steve

Thank Chris. You can tell I know dick about all this stuff and am grateful for all the help I can get. Do I check the accumulator pressure with the pump off and having opened a tap somewhere until it stops running so that the system is depressurised? Or is it done the opposite way, with the pump on and the system pressurised? Whatever the pressure, I still can't see why the water prefers to dribble out the PRV rather than up the vent pipe, unless the valve is faulty I suppose. Steve

Thanks Pete. I don't think the vent pipe is blocked because when I pulled out the PRV and let it snap back in order to turn its position, the shock of the valve which was open momentarily with water running out freely then suddenly closing caused a little water to be expelled up the vent pipe. However I haven't yet checked the seal as you suggested in your earlier message. Will do so. As far as the accumulator is concerned there is only one in the system, at the front of the boat next to the water pump. I haven't checked its pressure yet but will do so. I understand this has to be around half the cut out pressure of the pump, if I can find out the latter. The only other thing I can think of is to replace the whole PRV assembly on the basis that it may be faulty. I am told that is very unlikely being new, but you never know I guess. It may be too weak and therefore the water pressure opens it too soon which is an easier path than driving the heated surplus water up the lengthy vent pipe. regards Steve

Bad form I guess to reply to my own post but in case it has been overlooked, is anyone able to help me solve this problem? Steve

The problem of the dribbling PRV is still there. I had thought it had gone away earlier after I'd moved the PRV round a bit but it is only when the calorifier gets really hot that the pressure rises sufficiently to open the PRV. That happens once the engine has been running for a while, or alternatively with the engine off but I'm heating the calorifier with my central heating. What do I do? I hate getting puddles of water into the engine bay every time I use the boat or the ch. It's not just a couple of drips, after a day's cruising or running the ch for a short time it's quite noticeable. What I don't understand is why the water expelled from the PRV isn't pushed up the vent pipe overboard. That is what it is designed to do and the pipe is not blocked. Would it be because of the length of the pipe is something over two feet and the easiest path for the water is to open the PRV at 2 bar instead of pushing it up the vent pipe? How can I cure the problem? Thanks for any further help guys. There are pictures I took of my set up earlier in the thread which show the PRV and the overflow vent pipe. Chris W suggested earlier fitting a second accumulator near the calorifier of sufficient capacity to absorb all of the expansion and thus prevent the problem but that was only to stop the water being expelled at all. I don't mind it being expelled as long as it goes overboard and not into my engine bay. regards Steve

She's looking good Les. I like the wood, specially the floor, glad you went for that rather than the grubby carpets that so many narrowboats have, though I know yours is a widebeam. I think wood floors are becoming more popular with new builds though fashion is not the reason you and I chose them, more good looks and easier maintenance. regards Steve

Indeed Chris but it is certainly more Sterling's fault than Andys. In fact it is wholly Sterling's fault. Why should he have to bond the case? A user shouldn't have to do anything to an electrical appliance to render it incapable of delivering a shock from the case however mild as a result of an internal fault, that's the manufacturer's job. Surely you agree with that don't you? Why not just admit that Sterling fouled up? Also I am surprised that you use static shocks as a way of defending this. It is a poor defence. Sure I get a static shock in my home and in my car on occasion or a rubbed balloon. I have also felt the tingling sensation to which you refer when kissing ladies though I'm not convinced the source in the latter situation is entirely electrical. The point as you know better than me is that these static shocks are not delivered by a faulty appliance but from walking across the carpet or balloon rubbing etc. I don't expect carpet or ballon makers to prevent their products from delivering shocks, they're not electric appliances. But I most certainly do not expect an appliance to deliver a shock from its case as a result of some internal fault. You can see that I'm sure. regards Steve

I'd agree with you there Dave if the charge was too small to be dangerous. But that doesn't excuse the poor way that Sterling handled it, which in my view is the most important part of the story. They come out very badly here and it's not the first time either. Moreover I don't think that Andys deserved the flak that he got for bringing the case (pun intended) here. Surely some sympathy would have been appropriate. Instead he was made to feel like it was all his fault. You can see why he became exasperated. regards Steve

Irrelevant Gibbo. The actual level of the charge is not the point, if it can be felt. I can't believe you are arguing that way. Isn't it rather obvious that no piece of electrical equipment should deliver any electrical shock from its case that can be felt by the user regardless of the actual level and whether it is injurious or not? I'd hate to think that the large range of household electrical items that we all use daily would deliver mild shocks through their cases. There's no way that is acceptable. Quite clearly there should be no charge discernible to touch on the case of any equipment like this. If there is it is faulty. Any kind of argument suggesting that it is acceptable to have a small electrical charge on the case and that therefore the device is okay merely because in someone's view it is not at an injurious level is ludicrous in the extreme. The only acceptable level is zero for what can be felt. Moreover what adds insult to injury here is that the manufacturer, Sterling, instead of saying the charger is clearly duff and replacing it, try and bullshit their way out of it - assuming what we have been told is accurate. As a result they injure their reputation. The whole affair stinks. Any supplier will occasionally sell the odd faulty item. How they deal with it is what separates a decent one from the poorer. regards Steve

I too don't understand why Andys has been criticised. Who cares what the exact voltage or current or whatever was on the case or whether it was large enough to kill or merely just to thrill? That isn't the point at all. If he could feel some sort of electric shock on the case of the charger then obviously it was faulty. Period. Moreover chargers are not equipment meant to be used or prior tested by qualified electricians any more than a toaster. You plug the thing in and it should work without problem and most certainly without any electric shock off the case. That is the point. Why defend faulty manufacture? I don't understand this love some people have for Sterling. Maybe they have some of that company's products but be honest guys, that is not relevant. I have Victron and it's fine. But if it was a piece of shit and gave me shocks and moreover the manufacturer gave me the run around when I tried to get help I'd say so here. And I wouldn't expect to be hairsplitted about the level of volts or amps present. I am pretty much convinced that Sterling are inferior to the leading brands, as indicated by the problems of several readers and opinions of boat builders. regards Steve

Indeed Carl, I quite agree, nobody cared much if a few million Jews and others were murdered, that is true, but it's not what were talking about. We were talking about the French record during the war. Britain was never occupied but I agree with you that had it been, there would have been a lot of collaboration in forming a puppet government and assisting the Germans with their evil because there was a lot of well known sympathy for Hitler before the war. The Daily Mail springs to mind, Mosley and so on. But it's rather ludicrous given his war record to imply that Churchill himself was in any way a Nazi sympathiser whatever he may have said earlier. That is pretty hard to take and I can't agree with you at all there. So yes, we in general would probably have been no better than the French. In fact the occupation of Jersey proves it in the way many of them collaborated. I can't forget that famous photo of that grining ape of a policeman as he opens the door to some stinking German. Also the tiny handful of Jews on the island were sold out by British officials acting quite willingly for the krauts. regards Steve

And your point is? What does it have to do with the recent entries in this thread? Attacking the Brits or Churchill in particular? Defending the Nazis? Or What? regards Steve

Er, not sure how much you really follow football but Rooney is out due to injury. regards Steve

I actually agree that we should judge people on current considerations not necessarily on past history though it does depend on how past that history is. If it happened yesterday for example few would be able to ignore it. However I personally was discussing history because it had been brought up earlier - as a separate subject to current status - and I was careful to refer to the people of that period. The present population is not of course not the same people. Whether national characteristics are transmitted through generations is arguable. They probably are to a large extent otherwise they wouldn't exist for long. But as long as there is no war then the worst is not brought out and is invisible. France for example can be a damn nice place to live, especially in the warm south, for a Brit who has money on which to live independently of work. No doubt a lot of Germany may well be attractive too. But few Brits would have wanted to live in such places during the last war if they were Jewish, communist, trade unionists or just freedom loving and openly anti Nazi. Now though, such considerations are for the moment not important. regards Steve

From where the hell did you get your WW2 history of France? What happened was that the Germans occupied northern France. Administration of the rest instead of direct occupation was left to a French puppet government based at Vichy and known by that name. The Free French forces under General de Gaulle move temporarily to England to escape the Germans. The shameful Vichy government and its numerous support amongst the French people did all the German's dirty work for them such as rooting out Jews to be murdered, quite eagerly, as did for example the French police force in Paris when they surprised even the Gestapo with their wonderful efficiency in rounding up Jews for the Germans to deport and murder. Whilst there was resistance, the extent of it has been greatly exaggerated. The French even have a cynical joke about it concening individuals who claim to have been in it. "Maquis apres guerre" (I may not have the exact grammatically correct words there but that is the gist of it) meaning someone who claimed after the war to have been in it whilst never having been so. The truth is that most French civilans did nothing either for or against the Germans. That is probably to be expected from any country is occupied by such an evil, vicious, murdering force as the Nazis. But a shamefully large number actively collaborated to become puppet government and local officials, denounce Jews, those sheltering Jews, resistance people and anyone else they wished to get rid of, often for personal reaons. At the same time they had a number of heroic people who were murdered by the Nazis because they sheltered Jews or engaged in other activities. The French of the period don't don't stand out as having a better record against the Germans than other occupied countries, if anything they appear worse. In Poland as a comparison, the first country the Germans occupied and which started the war, there was very little co-operation in great contrast to the French and Vichy. In Denmark the King himself stood out to try and save their Jews. The French of that time were not amongst the most heroic of peoples for not only did they stand by and do nothing, which is understandable, their record is heavily stained by active collaboration. regards Steve