|
|
Post by jo479 on Aug 22, 2024 18:00:44 GMT
I can't add much to this question only that BIs should only be concerned with the mechanical strength of the boiler and not with whether or not it is absolutely free of weeps or small leaks. Obviously if the latter is significant it will be more difficult to maintain 2 x WP for the specified time. Loctite is a suitable kaulking method and mentioned in the boiler code. My experience is at firebox operating temperatures lower rated Loctite may be affected by this temperature and not have the mechanical strength but still retains its kaulking ability. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by jo479 on Aug 22, 2024 18:01:54 GMT
Where does it mention Loctite in the Boiler Code, it's not in my copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by runner42 on Aug 22, 2024 23:13:47 GMT
Where does it mention Loctite in the Boiler Code, it's not in my copy. AMBSC Code Part 1 clause 2.6.2 Caulking Materials Brian |
|
|
|
Post by jo479 on Aug 23, 2024 17:28:47 GMT
Sorry, I didn't realise you were from Australia. obviously a different Boiler Code.
|
|
kelvin
Active Member
Posts: 20 
|
Post by kelvin on Aug 27, 2024 19:38:50 GMT
I think this would be a good negotiating position from which to request a hefty reduction in the advertised price. The Federation guidance is that you can make any boiler as long as it is a recognised design. Are SRS giving it a boiler certificate? If so it would be interesting to learn from them the provenance of the design as from the comments here it doesn't appear to be "well-documented".
|
|
|
|
Post by John Baguley on Aug 27, 2024 22:33:58 GMT
The problem is that the UK Boiler codes make no mention of the accepted methods of boiler construction and their design, unlike the Australian codes. The boiler probably is made to a published design so that satisfies the UK requirements as they stand at the moment.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewtoplis on Aug 28, 2024 17:20:27 GMT
The Federation guidance is that you can make any boiler as long as it is a recognised design. Are SRS giving it a boiler certificate? Can SRS "give it a boiler certificate"? I thought only clubs could do that? |
|
millman
Part of the e-furniture
Posts: 325
|
Post by millman on Aug 28, 2024 19:16:46 GMT
SRS can get a commercial boiler inspector to examine and test the boiler, I believe they do this for their own build Stafford range of locos. If your club inspector accepts this certificate is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balljoint on Aug 29, 2024 8:05:38 GMT
I recently purchased a B1 from SRS, which came with both hydraulic and steam tests issued by them. I also came up against club boiler inspectors telling me they were not valid. Having looked at the boiler test code and the insurance policy, I could see no reason why they should not be accepted. I contacted both Walker Midgely, The insurance broker, and Peter Squire, the Hon Secretary of the Federation of Model Engineering Societies, both of who confirmed that the SRS certificates were perfectly valid and should be accepted by clubs. Peter told me that there was confusion with the present system, and that the Federation were looking to clarify the matter in a future update to the code.
From the latest edition of the code:
12.6 Test Certificates which include repeat hydraulic test and steam test
results issued by professional or commercial organisations are
acceptable. It is not acceptable to mix a commercial hydraulic
repeat test certificate with a Club or Society issued steam test
certificate or vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Baguley on Aug 29, 2024 13:33:53 GMT
It is not acceptable to mix a commercial hydraulic repeat test certificate with a Club or Society issued steam test certificate or vice versa. Surely that means that once a steam test becomes due then the commercial hydraulic certificate becomes invalid even if it is still in date and another repeat hydraulic test must be carried out by the club inspector.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by simon6200 on Aug 29, 2024 21:33:55 GMT
Sounds to me that the whole British testing system needs an overhaul, like the US political system! The good thing about the AMBSC code is that it sets out the design rules. Boiler inspectors check that these have been followed and carried out successfully, and also officiate at the four-yearly hydro and steam tests. Strictly, they police the code but have no discretion. In practice, they do exercise sensible discretion. This removes largely the ability of them to be pedantic or vindictive. At the moment I am building a 2-1/2 boiler for an old freelance prairie that came originally from the UK. I designed it using the code. Eventually I’ll show a boiler inspector the parts and joints before I stick the inner and outer together.
|
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Aug 30, 2024 0:01:44 GMT
e From the latest edition of the code: 12.6 Test Certificates which include repeat hydraulic test and steam test results issued by professional or commercial organisations are acceptable. It is not acceptable to mix a commercial hydraulic repeat test certificate with a Club or Society issued steam test certificate or vice versa. Do we know the reasons why this is deemed not to be acceptable? Or is it a case of 'because the Federation says so'? |
|
|
|
Post by Balljoint on Aug 30, 2024 8:48:09 GMT
Interestingly, the insurance company are perfectly happy for the commercial hydraulic test to be used the following year if you get the steam test done at a different commercial tester. Unfortunately, the Federation rules do not allow the commercial hydraulic test to used in the second year. It's a crazy world we live in.
|
|
kelvin
Active Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by kelvin on Aug 31, 2024 18:53:14 GMT
I recently purchased a B1 from SRS, which came with both hydraulic and steam tests issued by them. I also came up against club boiler inspectors telling me they were not valid. Having looked at the boiler test code and the insurance policy, I could see no reason why they should not be accepted. I contacted both Walker Midgely, The insurance broker, and Peter Squire, the Hon Secretary of the Federation of Model Engineering Societies, both of who confirmed that the SRS certificates were perfectly valid and should be accepted by clubs. Peter told me that there was confusion with the present system, and that the Federation were looking to clarify the matter in a future update to the code. From the latest edition of the code: 12.6 Test Certificates which include repeat hydraulic test and steam test results issued by professional or commercial organisations are acceptable. It is not acceptable to mix a commercial hydraulic repeat test certificate with a Club or Society issued steam test certificate or vice versa. Don't hold your breath while you are waiting. I'm afraid the existing inspection system and documentation leaves a lot to be desired, particularly the lack of any construction code. But, it requires a lot of work to put it right and those involved are giving freely of their own time. |
|
|
|
Post by Balljoint on Sept 3, 2024 14:51:58 GMT
It's not really a problem for me as I have documentary evidence should any boiler inspector query it. But I do feel sorry for any individual that comes up against an akward inspector, and hasn't got the confidence to argue the toss.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Baguley on Sept 4, 2024 11:04:51 GMT
Well, I have just received my copy of the AMBSC code for copper boilers.
I notice that section 2.6.2 on caulking materials says that Loctite or similar can be used but NOT in areas exposed to fire so that would rule out using it in Australia inside the firebox so it would be a no no for firebox stays.
Section 2.6.3 also says that 'caulking materials shall be assumed to have no structural strength'.
Non of this is relevant to the UK of course as we don't have a similar code.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Sept 4, 2024 15:12:09 GMT
Would putting a brass nut on the firebox end of the stay mean the loctite isn't actually exposed to the fire?
Any Australian members care to comment on how this clause is actually interpreted by their boiler inspectors?
If I'd got a boiler with a weeping stay,which I don't, I'd still be tempted to quietly dose it with Radweld. Anyone care to admit to having done this, and did it work?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Baguley on Sept 4, 2024 18:39:56 GMT
Haven't used Radweld but I have sealed leaking stays with Loctite 290 which is a very thin wicking grade threadlock. It seemed to work ok. I've also sealed leaking copper tubes in a steel boiler with it with success. It helps if you can get a bit of vacuum inside the boiler as that helps draw it in to the joint.
John
|
|
gwrfan
Part of the e-furniture
Posts: 458
|
Post by gwrfan on Sept 5, 2024 11:26:35 GMT
Haven't used Radweld but I have sealed leaking stays with Loctite 290 which is a very thin wicking grade threadlock. It seemed to work ok. I've also sealed leaking copper tubes in a steel boiler with it with success. It helps if you can get a bit of vacuum inside the boiler as that helps draw it in to the joint. John
Hi All. Re Radweld in boilers. I have an issue with the 4 brass screws on my Pansy Regulator. They are leaking at the moment and are not removeable. I have drilled one out and re-tapped it, but my milling machine motor has died! But I wondered how Radweld might affect the regulator disc and valve on the regulator stand? Wouldn't want that to be sealed up. Any comments please? I'm actually planning on drilling the other screws out when I can. Thanks. Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by John Baguley on Sept 5, 2024 13:25:34 GMT
I could be wrong but I got the impression that Radweld was little metal flakes suspended in solution. The flakes sealed up any holes but the rest remained floating in the water. That would definitely be a bad thing for boiler fittings.
I have also seen water glass (sodium silicate?) suggested for sealing up leaks but that could be a problem as well if the boiler was not flushed out well after the water glass had done it's job.
John
|
|
