Starting with the article in the magazine, I would comment that it refers to the advantages of using system additives generally, not advantages of the specific product. Only then does it start to talk about endotherm, but what is the control? Pure tap water, or other leading brand?
1. Without seeing the scientific methodology and full results, it is hard to comment on the video of the radiator warm up sequence in detail, but it would be interesting to know how the several variables were kept as standard as possible. I would comment that we never see the temperature in the radiators stablise or peak: both radiators still seem to be warming further at the end of the video.
2. 'Hard science' is used to mean the opposite of science. The scientific method is actually to have a hypothesis and then test this hypothesis to see if there appears to be a set of results supporting that original hypothesis. This is covered at pre-GCSE level, but most of us forget. 'Hard science' does not mean you don't bother to check the outcome because the theory says something must work. The theory about surface tension makes sense to me, but I'd be more interested in seeing the results and what the actual experiment was. After all, running a heating system on urine (its great on the garden too!) might work better than water, until everything starts to go rusty so a one-off test is of limited value. Again, I'd like to see the methodology.
3. Cynically, I would suggest that the limitation of applicability of an inhibitor might be more down to what boiler manufacturers require (i.e. who they have been sponsored to recommend) than the inhibitor's unique properties. But Endotherm is not claimed to replace inhibitor. So you still need X brand inhibitor to satisfy manufacturer's instructions, presumably. Also, this isn't a reason why installers should use energy-saving heating additives, thus failing to justify the title of the article.
4. This makes me more likely to want to look into this in greater depth and not write-off the product as snake-oil too soon. Interesting to note the caveat that it has only been tested with condensing boilers and that the result was specific to the cases studied and that '[p]otential performance improvements depend on the current performance, condition and settings of the heating system'. So I need to read the full report to have any idea of the likelyhood of whatever system I wish to dose behaving in the same way, don't I?
5. 'A quick win'. This puts me off. I fit and install products I believe the customer needs, not products I tell the customer s/he needs because I want to make money selling them. If I put 2 litres of inhibitor in a system (as I did last week) it will be because I believe 1 is insufficient, not just so I can make a mark-up on two bottles. If £36 really does make a 10% saving, I would be using this stuff at home. I suspect most plumbers are the same as me in this respect: while we work to make a living, we aren't in it solely for the money, or for 'a quick win'.
In conclusion, I am slightly interested, but probably not enough to read the full reports. However, if you can get hold of Enertek test report E3363 and the other reports referred to on the EST webpage relating to EndoTherm, I would be interested. It is very much against this product that much is made of Enertek's scientific testing, but there is not a very obvious web-link to the report, or even an explanation of how the product was tested. I would have put this in place of honour on my website were it my product (but then I don't think like most people, admittedly).
Sadly the case studies reported on the Endotherm website do not make it clear that there were no other variables. E.g. Skipton High School: the school pupils were involved in the project and were therefore presumably aware that the school was trying to reduce energy use. Could it possibly be that some level of behavioural change was achieved? Reductio ad absurdem, my ratty heating system and draughty house only cost me £300 a year to heat, compared with the previous occupants who spent more. Is it my behaviour or the fact that I installed a Magnaclean? Similarly, how do we know that nothing changed except the heating fluid additive being added? Even degree days aren't a fair test when a building is intermittently occupied and so, presumably, intermittently heated.
I do think parts of the Endotherm website are beautifully written. For example, a distracted reader of Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards - Central Heating Additive - Energy Saving might be forgiven for taking the idea that Endotherm will improve the EER of a property even though the final sentence would seem to confirm my view that Endotherm will not affect the EER in any way whatsoever, EERs being the blunt instrument that they are.
Last edited:
