Boiler I. D. For high reading on analysers

[Knappers]

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?.....

 

[Jones82]

"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!

 

[Scott_1979]

Hi Scott,

From what I read

Flueless - ID
Flued - AR

As per GIUSP

Not flueless, open flued such as a back boiler.

 

[Burger]

Not flueless, open flued such as a back boiler.

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

 

[firemant]

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

 

[Millsy 82]

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.

 

[firemant]

What they should of done was put it like an mot fail or advisory but as usual gas safe messed it up.

TBF, gasSafe do not make up the rules. They are simply the masters of the roll.

 

[Matt0029]

The ratio on at least one of the boilers that was condemned was 0.009.

 

[Burger]

The ratio on at least one of the boilers that was condemned was 0.009.

Was it condemned or just turned off? AR usually gets turned off unless turning off doesn’t remove the risk. Did you investigate the cause?

 

[Matt0029]

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.

 

[firemant]

Not flueless, open flued such as a back boiler.

No. Flueless in this context IS flueless. Flued will cover RS & OF

 

[Matt0029]

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.

 

[firemant]

"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".

 

[Matt0029]

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?

 

[bacon_sandwich]

eeek, i would be yanking my probe out with those readings... lol