JamesPa

Agreed. I think my posts reflect the reality of my thinking, but can I be sure? You need imho to assess the probability that voting for 'change', or more specifically the change that such a vote might realistically deliver, is actually good for you, however much you dislike the status quo. A large number of people voted for change in 2016 and, if the polls are to be believed, have apparently discovered that it wasn't actually good for them. Is this going to be repeated? It is your call to judge for yourself. As I have said all along you have to choose between the options on offer, none of which may be to your taste! Perhaps you can some day make peace with the world as it is rather than continually expressing anger. I do hope so!

@Post and beam Hopefully from the various replies above you get the impression that this isn't an ashp specific problem, it's a central heating problem, which may lie in the ashp, or may not (just as a similar problem in a system with a gas boiler may lie in the boiler or may not). Unfortunately such problems can be a little difficult to track down, but there is no realistic alternative. Also unfortunately you now have the task of tracking it down or paying others to do so, unless it turns out that it's a warranty problem. I know this isn't the ideal situation, but it is the realistic one. I suggest some investigation unless you prefer to pay others to find the problem if it turns out not to be covered by warranty. I'm sure people here will continue to provide hints as to how to diagnose the fault if you want to track it down yourself.

If i knew where and how many i could do this. Do you mean the tundish No. That's linked to the pressure in the hot water tank not the pressure in the heating system. They are separate pressure vessels.

@Beelbeebub (Almost) Nobody is listening to you because the information you provide doesn't support their prejudices and/or desire to blame others for their woes. Keep providing it! Policy based evidence making needs to be fought.

No. I'm not an optimist. If anything I am pessimistic, but I will stretch to realist: Whether or not you or I like it we have to choose between the alternatives on offer. That's how it is. So you can complain all you like, but in the end you can either vote for whoever seems to offer the better bundled offer, or abstain and thereby relinquish any moral authority to complain about the outcome. Your choice! Actually there are two further options: Become a politician yourself if you have the relevant characteristics. Lead a bloody revolution Which do you choose? Vote for the best offer Abstain Become a politician Lead a revolution

OK fair diagnosis IMHO. My gas boiler based system exhibited this behaviour in its failing days, turned out to be the pressure release valve in the boiler. I also, at times, had the odd leaky compression joint elsewhere in the system although they tended to self heat because of how hard our water is! You could take the side and front off of the unit, the AAV is certainly obvious in my 7kW machine, I dont know if there is also a PRV but I imagine so!

Thats a somewhat defeatist attitude although I do understand your thinking. If its written, particularly if its in the manifesto or published policy document, you can at least refer back and check what the weasel words are. You also know that it has passed scrutiny and being stated alongside other commitments, ie its a package which has either been thought through as a whole (or if it hasnt you will be able to tell) and has been shared with others in the same party. If its spoken you usually cant check the weasel words and most importantly its said in isolation so may well be inconsistent with other things that are said. Neither is perfect and circumstances do change, so we cant expect any government to meet 100% of its manifesto commitments. However at least we have a solid, reasonably complete and consistent basis to go on and, in a written policy document, a direction of travel against which they can be tested.

I cant see that this is anything special to Vaillant, its more likely the pipework system itself, and more to the point the water in it. It took a month for the air in my 7kW Vaillant based system fully to come out of solution. Some came out through the automatic bleed valves, but there was one radiator which had to be bled every two days for a month because air collected there. Needless to say it needed topping up after air was bled. My installer had been diligent and run a purge cycle which shifts air not in solution, but does nothing to shift small bubbles of which there will be many. Patience is required! That said it sounds like you could have a slow leak, which might of course be anywhere in pipework which has been disturbed or at a faulty/leking an automatic air vent/pressure release valve. I know that pressure release valves occasionally get stuck although I thought this happened only as they age - but maybe it can happen to new ones. Interestingly my installer visited last week for the first annual service and closed the automatic air vent in the outdoor unit which apparently is a Vaillant recommendation at the first annual service and suggests that they can eventually leak. If the problem persists then it does need to be traced. I dont know if that helps, just my personal experience

How is this consistent with the plot, apparently produced by the Industry and posted by @Beelbeebub here? Perhaps you could provide the source of your data so we can get to the bottom of this, its important! A 50 year horizon (presumably to near exhaustion) means we have to have made a whole lot of progress towards eliminating our reliance by 2050 anyway. The graph referred to above suggests that the horizon is more like 25 years. We currently import 40% of our total energy (net). Between 1980 and 2005 we were either (net) break even or a net exporter, but even then, at the height of production, only by relatively modest amounts in global terms and in comparison to our own use. Its difficult to see how this is consistent with any kind of energy security based on the reserves we now have left. OK so 'the money we get from this' implies no or only minor changes to the UK tax regime (otherwise we dont get the money). Yet above you assert that this is a problem. You cant both benefit from the tax and relax the regime. Essentially you are saying that we do need to make the transition but perhaps a bit slower. Reform dont seem to be proposing that, I quote 'Scrap Net Zero and Related Subsidies Ditching Net Zero could save the public sector over £30 billion per year for the next 25 years'. I cant find anything in their policy booklet about defence measures against climate change either, and if you look at the 'budget' on pages 23 and 24 there is nothing for civil infrastructure of this scale and its difficult to see how such infrastructure could be self funding. Essentially therefore they appear to be proposing do nothing at all for 25 years other than invest in small modular reactors. I reiterate that its difficult to see how this is consistent with any kind of energy security based on the fossil reserves we now have left. Sorry but unless its in writing, I dont think what politicians (:of any colour) say has much credibility. Policy booklets/manifestos are what parties of all colours are prepared to commit to. Politicians, again of all colours, say all sorts of things in speeches with all sorts of weasel words that amount to little or no commitment, and I for one dont have the time to listen to all of them. In terms of seconding people from industry, so far as I am aware all Governments do that (and it was argued above that industry has too much influence). I cant see the differentiator here. I would probably agree.

1) I agree with 2) I cant see how moving as rapidly as reasonably possible away from being almost completely dependent on a finite resource controlled by a small number of largely despot nations is anything other than common sense. Neither can I see that leaving the relatively tiny amount of that resource that we do control in the ground for as long as we can, so we can use it if we get desperate and/or for applications where there is no alternative, is anything other than common sense. Obviously there is room for discussion over the speed of the this transition, but not to make it with a fair degree of urgency, now we have the technology, is grossly irresponsible for our economic security in the unstable world that you quite rightly identify we live in. That has to be combined with defensive measures such as those to which you refer. There is a difficult discussion to be had about where to defend and where to abandon. We cant ultimately stop nature so any investment in defences has a limited lifetime unless the world collectively reduces climate change, and we will need to take this into account. To have any motivation to take the defensive steps you first have to accept the climate science which, it seems, some are trying to avoid doing. That case has to be fought until any influence from the deniers disappears and we can thus focus on what we are going to do rather than discussing whether we need to do anything defensive. 3) All I did was ask for a reference to back up your claim about their policy, without expressing an opinion. Not sure how thats 'getting into a funk'

Unfortunately we probably agree on that also! The British public are, in many ways, their own worst enemies IMHO. Much of the media, and some politicians, know that and exploit it for their own ends.

Apologies for the TLA (three letter acronymn). SMR = Small Modular Reactor - a class of nuclear reactor. I shan't explain that term any further because that's as far as the Reform policy booklet goes. As far as I know they are widely known as SMRs, in fact I think I hear that abbreviation more than the full name. Im am still interested in the reference to the policy but if you dont want to provide it then so be it. Re 'To wet your appetite for discussion I'll make my case as an Engineer who has a Civic responsibility, you might find that interesting?' please feel free, it might well be interesting!

Obviously you have never had a boss. If you watched him Whitty made it pretty clear when he disagreed and also that his job was to point out the facts, not to make policy. Utimately he had a boss and the boss calls the shots (or couldnt be bothered). Would we have been better off if he had resigned, I dont think so! Cant really see that but that isnt really the point. What is the point is that we the public (along with the media) create the conditions in which our (human, not perfect) politicians are chosen and we the public have to choose from those which are produced as a result. If we want 'better' politicians we need to start respecting them, giving them a realistic time to achieve anything, and looking underneath their personalities to their intents. We also need to take the time to understand the issues they face and recognise that many, many of the problems we would like solved arent actually soluble. In short we need to get serious about politics, get educated about it, and have real opinions not opinions modelled on what the media tells us. For the avoidance of doubt by 'we' I mean at least a majority of the voting public, not anybody specific on this forum. Until we do that any party which wants to get into power pretty much has to choose people who have the shallow talents that get them elected, not necessarily the talents we need to manage the country. In short we collectively have ourselves to blame, we get who we elect.

I try to but just to be sure I just checked their current policy booklet and cant find what you say. What I can find in relation to energy is lots about scrapping Net zero, stuff about britain's 'vast' energy resources and some stuff about SMRs. Since you are quoting the policy you could perhaps help me out by giving the reference

Cant see that. He could have had a great career in the legal profession, why bother with the sh1t of politics? I cant really see what he is getting out of it either! Maybe a bit from the lecture circuit (not a vast amount as he is hardly the most engaging speaker) but thats about it so far as I can see. I think it is fair to say that Government is perhaps too influenced by corporate interests. Thats difficult to resist when corporates are where all the money (to get things done) and most of the skill is. IMHO we need a much stronger civil service, they need to be the very best in the field that they are responsible for so they can run rings around the corporates not the other way round. We do have a few such people (Whitty for example) but we aren't likely to get many more if we, the public, start demonising them all the time which now seems to be the declared policy of some of our political parties, presumably because they prefer to ignore facts. And if we want to get things done without being influenced by the corporates, we need higher taxes so the Government has the financial heft to call the shots. Like it or not Government is currently heavily reliant on corporate investment to get things done, which inevitably gives them significant clout. However as you say this is now way off topic!