User talk:John Stumbles

From DIYWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk to me here! John Stumbles

Hi John

I came across your excellent articles while researching a shower problem via various sites, and I'm hoping that perhaps you can help.

My son has recently moved into a new (to him, IYSWIM) house. The house has been renovated by the previous owners and has a combi boiler. The problem is with the shower in the bathroom which is a "Victorian" style (i.e.brass & porcelain) and which although apparently "thermostatic" does not control the water temperature at all. The temperature varies randomly, but always too hot for comfort, no matter what the control setting is. I should mention that the control is a single lever for both flow and temperature.

The markings on the shower mixer valve indicate that it is a "Force 10 Thermostatic". I am unsure if this is the name of the manufacturer, or the model. I cannot find any references to this name on t'internet at all.

I have dismantled the valve, and tested the thermostat capsule in a bowl of hot water and it appears to operate OK.

Have you come across "Force 10" before? Any ideas what to do next?


Peter Kay

Peter: I suggest you ask this on the newsgroup as you will get responses from people with a wider range of expertise and experience than just mine --John Stumbles 11:18, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks John. I've posted a couple of times but nobody has come up with the answer yet! Thanks again.

This has been discussed on the group before. AIUI a standard combi and standard thermostatic shower are incompatible. If you think about how the thermostatic shower controls temp, and how this affects a combi you should see why. The ng is the place tho. NT 00:09, 1 August 2007 (BST)

DIY Heatbank

Hi John Great easy to follow articles. Re the DIY heatbank, would you now suggest any modifications to the original? I'd particularly be interested in how best to link 2 100L standard direct cylinders together to form one store. Ian

I've no experience of such an arrangement so I'd suggest discussing it in the diy newsgroup. --John Stumbles 21:45, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Done a picture upgrade...

See Motorised_Valves. I added a link to the fill zoning article as well since that now has a nice diagrams for all the various plans along with detailed wiring centre schematics etc.

--John Rumm 17:36, 26 August 2009 (BST)


Hi John

I read with interest your test on inhibitors. We are currently investigation Sentinel X100 which appears to have altered it's dosing rate by 30%. Do you have any records dating back to 2004 when you carried out the test? Do you have the original paperwork showing the dosing rate at 100 to 1?


Harvey Bowden (Harvey Water Softeners Ltd.,

Article names

Hi John. Thought I'd best let you know why what's been done was done.

Its standard practice in wikis to use article names that avoid plurals and capitalisation other than at the first letter. The reason is that its then simple to make links within the wiki, enabling readers to navigate around easily. Without this, linking is a slow process, and links are often broken, and often just not included.

When an article is renamed from eg boilers to boiler, the wiki automatically creates a redirect to boiler under the heading boilers, so linking should never be broken. Wiki does this redirect seamlessly, so any link to boilers would go straight to boiler. NT 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason I noticed the Boilers article had been moved was because a link to it from an external website (mine!) had broken. The wiki had not created a redirect from the 'old' URL. This violates the sensible recommendation expounded by Tim Berners-Lee of the W3C "Cool URIs don't change"!

Nor had the wiki automatically created redirects or changed links within itself, so after you'd changed the capitalisation of some article names my brag list on my user page had several red links.

If you want to create new stubs that redirect to article names with the capitalisation and singularisation you prefer that's fine by me, but I feel strongly that we should keep the originals in place so that existing links - internal and from outside - continue to work.

I think it's a bit like uk.d-i-y itself: we're in the 'wrong' place in the heirarchy - we should be at somewhere like uk.rec.d-i-y - but I think everyone agrees it would be wrong for all sorts of reasons to try to move the group since it is established where it is.

YAPH 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didnt realise the wiki was failing to redirect with external links. Will do as you suggest in future. Cheers. NT 12:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)