Speculation
 
I have to start this page assuming a physical alteration was made to the gas fire 32.689.33 around June 2019 and forward of that date. Being forced to 'assume' anything does not sit well with me but I have no choice. This appliance obviously must have been altered in some way as no other explanation is possible. I also extrapolate from available evidence that the 'performance' of 32.689.33 is altered as a result*. A matter for the HSE to consider as a compliance issue. It is not just MI that has changed. The MI obviously contradict each other, therefore neither MI will serve both gas fires.

Because they have stated that "Since June 2019 there is no restrictor, this is why the manuals looked different", it is reasonable to assume they are saying there is no need for a spigot restrictor. Indeed none was provided in the box. At the time of installation I was working from the downloaded MI on the laptop as we routinely do. I assumed the householder had in haste binned the spigot restrictor when enthusiastically recycling the carton. I went looking for it, in case it was needed (they are not always).

The sketch below is another with a deliberately exaggerated caricature for the benefit of lay visitors. Drawn accurately the separate parts would merge and not be distinguishable otherwise to lay visitors.
 
I have already speculated that a 'restrictor' has been added to 32.689.33 since June 2019. I assert this has been built into the gas fire as a permanent addition and spans the opening in the back of the gas fire where the products of combustion (POC) leave the gas fire to enter the draught diverter. I believe I can see one fitted when looking through the 'letterbox' opening in the back of the draught diverter, where the separate spigot is fitted. The spigot is always needed.

In this sketch (not to scale), a represents the back of the gas fire showing the aperture where the POC exit, into the draught diverter b. The spigot which we all now know very well is represented by c.

The new restrictor I have speculated about I have depicted by a red line at d. This would impact on the evacuation of POC and testing in a Notified Body laboratory may have indicated it is safe to do so to help improve energy efficiency. If true this would be very carefully calculated and tested. I am not competent to judge such matters. I just hope the people who are, have done all this. This obviously impacts on the 'performance' of the appliance, depending on your definition of performance*.

I have no reason to doubt the safety of this product, providing it is correctly installed using the correct MI, only the shenanigans that have brought us to this point.
 
No product manufacturer is going to create this bizarre situation without a mighty powerful and compelling reason. The most powerful reason I can think of has to be marketing opportunities. Boost the energy efficiency credentials, boost the sales. Nothing wrong with that of course in principle but care is needed and this must all be compliant. I reasonably believe from all the evidence that 'the situation' is not compliant, hence the referral to the HSE.
 
* If (if) a permanent restrictor has been fitted to 32.689.33, this will obviously (to RGI) impact on 'performance' as less heat can escape up the flue. If the 'performance' of this appliance has been materially altered from the original design, it should, in my view, be marketed under a new GC Number and name. I believe the regulations may call for this if you study them. I speculate all this "as a basis for discussion". If my speculation is in error, I make no apology. I should not be forced to speculate. No one should. We need transparency.
 
 
Return to Home Page
 
Previous page Next Page