The Restrictor
 
Parts of this page are intended to make the document accessible to lay people, to save having two documents. RGI would not for example need a sketch to identify the parts referred to on the previous page or below.
 
This sketch has an exaggerated caricature to highlight features well known to RGI but not necessarily householders, A being the gas fire. The products of combustion (POC) in the gas fire, escape via the route indicated by the arrows. Through the back of the gas fire.

Indicated by b is the draught diverter, referred to later. The spigot c is what connects the draught diverter to the flue. Spigot screwed to the draught diverter. The closure plate d is usually a galvanised steel sheet or aluminium sheet securely taped (an absolute must) over the fireplace opening. The spigot fits through a 'letterbox' sized opening in the closure plate.

The Restrictor (not illustrated), if fitted, is simply a piece of metal fitted to the spigot to effectively restrict the size of the spigot in certain circumstances. The original MI spells out the possible circumstances. It should also be noted that the original MI mentions a spigot extender which can be used in rare circumstances known to RGI and set out in the original MI.

Note: If the products of combustion cannot escape the gas fire efficiently, this will (not might) lead to incomplete combustion and the production of deadly carbon monoxide (CO).
 
Hugely significant to RGI and not mentioned in any MI, for any affected gas appliance (not just 32.689.33), is the impact possible, arising from the vicissitudes of nature (down-draughts et al). The RGI is required to make judgements on this and so some decision making is subjective. Manufacturers have the luxury of factories where they can create optimum conditions, leading to accreditation under ISO 9000. RGI do not. It necessarily follows that RGI need and should demand the very best quality information (MI etc) as well as products. In this case the new MI is not fit for the purpose in my opinion. The fact that there are two MI is a disgrace, especially when only the original MI is published, with no further information, warning of changes. I would suggest this falls under the heading of negligence. It is also hugely suspicious and I believe non-compliant.

The new MI states "Note: This appliances (sic) does not require a Spigot Restrictor". Why is not mentioned. I speculate (I have no evidence yet), that a permanent restrictor may have been added to the gas fire where the POC leave the back of the gas fire. I further speculate this modification, if true, is to enhance the energy efficiency of the appliance, to improve its environmental credentials in the market place. I can just see what appears to be such a device through the aperture in the draught diverter but I need to see an original appliance to compare the two. If true then the performance of the appliance has been changed.

The original MI also refers to an option, in some circumstances, to fit a spigot extender. That is not mentioned in the new MI. We need answers and we should not forget that in theory, these changes, whatever they represent, should have been scrutinised by an approved 'Notified Body'. As a customer as well as a RGI, I will ultimately want evidence in support of that from an independent source, for peace of mind. Hence the HSE involvement.

The serious ramifications arising from all this will be discussed in another separate page under the title 'Ramifications'.
 
 
Return to Home Page
 
Previous page Next Page