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!

Reference please - thats not a policy I had seen.

I did write a long reply with names and reasons, but then thought, whats the point? So I have removed most of my reply. Instead I will just say Politics is a dirty game so anyone who does rise to the top has to have a ruthless streak somewhere. Sometimes we get well meaning people with a ruthless streak, sometimes we get people who are just ruthless. If you think they are all rubbish (whether or not you agree with their politics), then I would question what you expect from members of the human race. Personally, unless you are in it for yourself, being prime minister feels like a shit job to me, crap pay*, long hours, zero job security, never ending hassle, you can only get there by a long climb up a very greasy pole and of course guaranteed to fail ("all political careers ultimately end in failure"). Its frankly astounding that anyone stands for any reason other than their own self interest! We cant complain about who we get, we are responsible for it by creating the conditions which attract the people it attracts, and being so fickle in our voting and latterly impatient and unrealistic. Angela Merkel is not a great orator, and seems to have a fairly dull outward personality, yet the Germans trusted her for 16 years. Can you seriously imagine that happening in the UK? Im not sure I can even imagine someone like her being elected in the UK. * by comparison with what anyone of the calibre to be PM could earn in the private sector

100% agree. By and large it still is IMHO. Its not perfect but then human beings arent perfect I would say some politicians. Unfortunately the way the media reports means that all politicians have to play to the soundbites even if they do the right thing in the background (which I would say by and large some politicians, but by no means all, do. Quite so, it just seems to have intensified though and many people now seem to expect instant change and the impossible to happen. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Existing old people will die off for sure, but the trend is that the population ages. This means that an ever decreasing proportion of people working are supporting an ever increasing proportion of retired people. The only way this can happen is either (a) services and benefits get worse or (b) tax as a proportion of GDP goes up. The alternative is to allow more immigration. Plenty of young people from other countries are eager to come here to work, unfortunately (largely) the same people who are causing the problem object to this solution. Of course there are charlatan politicians promising the impossible, but, if we are stupid enough to elect them, they cant and wont deliver because they cant defy gravity. The British public and the British media need to grow up otherwise the problem will be solved only when the country goes bankrupt and thus a solution is imposed from outside. We aren't alone in having this problem, much of Western Europe does - just look at the fuss over pensions in France!

And those who have ashps, if they have any sense, are doing again. Better outcome too, more comfortable to heat continuously and slowly rather than in short hot bursts. All the fancy controls we have been sold make things easier for installers not better for householders. They also make a lot of money for the controls industry.

I largely agree but what's the solution. The media have adopted a totally divisive attitude and some politicians actively encourage division. This means that party cooperation has become an anathema. Any longer than 5 years feels too long, particularly if we get a bunch of nutters or lazy sods who do very little, both of which can happen. Perhaps PR would force cooperation? Alternatively we could perhaps elect one third of the parliament every 3 years (for example) but that could lead to even more short term ism. In my personal opinion the public are to blame, egged on by the media (you can put it the other way round if you wish!). The expectation has become that a new government will fix everything immediately and if they don't they become hated. Yet that's impossible, some things aren't fixable and nothing is fixable immediately. We de industrialised starting in the 80s and the process has been more or less continuous since, albeit with the occasional interlude following a change in government. That's the best part of 40 years of strategic mismanagement which isn't going to be fixed overnight. WE have to grow up if we want better government. Sadly I fear we are regressing!

Earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) somebody posted french electric and gas prices. To my surprise electricity is about the same as ours but gas is double. So in a sense the question to ask may be 'why is gas so cheap'? Germany has about the same domestic electricity prices as us also.

It's not that they don't coordinate. Like it or not what we see is the penalty of living on a crowded island with a democracy. Everyone has their say and infrastructure projects are bound to disadvantage someone. So they always get slowed down by planning issues because of a small group who don't want it in their back yard, augmented by a larger group that have ideological objections or choose to ignore reality. Additionally most planning decisions are made by local not national government and they may not have the same priorities. Again a feature of democracy in a crowded island. If you can think of a solution that is likely to be politically acceptable, practical and affordable then I am sure there are people who would be interested!

Sorry but that appears to be where we have descended to (and I use the word descended deliberately) People now expect government (made up of human beings remember) to solve often insoluble problems in timescales that are wholly unrealistic even for the subset of problems that are soluble. The media whip up hatred/discontent by positioning almost everything as bad, without bothering to consider any of the past or other difficult or impossible to control conditions that in fact must be dealt with. The result is general discontent and the 'none of the above' approach. It must be pretty depressing if you are a well meaning politician knowing that you can never achieve what people now expect. Frankly being PM or Chancellor must be a pretty shit job given the feedback unless, like some but by no means all, you are in it purely for your own ends. In the real world (unless we abdicate all choice) we have to make a choice between imperfect options promoted by human beings constrained by the real world. If we were a bit (well actually quite a lot) more patient and allowed perhaps a decade for meaningful change we might be able to improve some of the underlying constraints, but we have given up on that it seems and expect big change within a few months. As it is we are risk throwing everything that is good out with the bathwater by not recognising that we cant always have what we want, and even when we can we definitely cant have when we want it. I am sorry but, whilst I fully respect someone's right not to vote, I have absolutely zero sympathy or respect for anyone who wishes to vote 'none of the above'. Its simply abdicating reality.

FWIW I suffered from this in some rooms. Double glazing UPVC from the 80s. I replaced the sealed units (some of which may have 'gone' I think) with low e argon filled. Now get condensation in bottom 2cm only and only on very coldest days. It also made a noticeable difference to the house comfort. I dont have trickle vents. If you can borrow a thermal imaging camera that may give useful insights, particularly if you have cold bridges or failed cavity wall insulation neither of which you can find by simple inspection (but of course they may not be easy to fix either!)