Superseal Magic Box -

zeupater

Shaun1986 wrote: »

Guys, Im not trying spin it in anyway that is not valid.

What i seen when i came on this forum was what appeared to be tradesmen condeming this product when i dont agree with the reason behind it.

Is it over priced ? Yes i would say so.

Doesnt it work ? yes i believe it does and so does thousands of customers and indipendant tests done by different lab tests.

Can it acheive the proposed savings? in the right environment absolutely.

The only objections i can see is regarding the cost to fit this by yourself (DIY) or local plumber friend ect.

If someome is spending £3000 in oil on a yearly bases which i would imagine is the type of customer base these companies target rather than £100 duel fuel. Could this be a real time savings and good investment?

Again i belive so. No matter what it cost to fit or buy ultimately if the savings justify the outlay then were is the problem??

Just like solar panels someone has and will continue to make panels out of plexi glass and black paint that can heat your hot water for hundereds of pounds rather than thousands which reneable energy companies charge, however this after years on the market became accredited and recognised by government bodies because it worked using the sun.

So....... although im sure you guys could build the system and install it for hundereds or maybe thousands but would you guarentee it or even get a patent for it??? highly doubtful.

In my opinion i believe in it..... and by condeming the product and scaring people off you could be doing someone an in justice.

Shaun

Hi

I don't condemn the product, just the hype & the reported typical price. From your own description "The BOX acts as a Heat exchanger/buffer tank.", well, to me that simply sounds like a pretty basic (possibly even no coil?) thermal store which is being used as an in-line heat reservoir to reduce thermostatic cycling of a non-modulating boiler in order to attempt to keep the boiler operation in a more efficient part of it's performance curve - this is something which I looked at years ago and decided that it would never show a financial return on a unit costing around one-twentieth of the £10k mentioned.

Anyone can save money by turning the thermostat down, upgrading the control system or fitting TRVs, that's with or without any 'magic' gadgets, so with any benefit being the same on both sides of the savings equation, they become irrelevant to the discussion. All that remains is that for any given heat requirement, any such unit can only save money if it can improve the efficiency of fuel conversion into heat and it goes to say that the cost saving percentage (excluding £Investment) cannot be substantially different to the rate of efficiency gain.

As a simple exercise, let's take a pretty typical modern 90% efficient SAP 'A' rated boiler and assume that a box of gadgets costing £10k could raise the performance to 100% (which it couldn't ... but just to apply a sanity check) ... in this case, someone spending £3000/year on fuel could save £300(Max), so £10000 represents 33years (10/0.3) of fuel efficiency savings on a current-cost basis, but remember, 100% conversion efficiency is impossible, so that becomes 66years, if there's a 5% gain, or 330years for a 1% gain, but then again, what's the design life of the gadget or manufacturer's guarantee?, probably nowhere near 33years, let-alone 330 !.

HTH
Z

Shaun1986

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Shaun. Appreciate your polite response, and I apologise if I was overly rude. I also agree with the sentiment in your post that I quoted.

However, couple of things.

Firstly, hopefully you've spotted the mistake now about the temp savings. The DECC 2 to 3% savings relate to heating a house to a lower temperature. The less heat you put in, the lower your bill. You linked that to the water temp of the heating system, and that's not relevant. The temp may have an effect extrapolated etc etc, but the bill savings relate to the house temp, not the water temp. Otherwise, drop the temp by between 33C and 50C and at 2% to 3% savings per degree C you'd have a 100% saving!

I thought you were trying to spin this, if not, fair enough.

Secondly, having read about these last year, and after reading the extremely unconvincing evidence (the fuel savings in the Trinity College Dublin report, are for an oil boiler which appears to be unable to modulate power efficiently (i.e. full power or off)) I asked for some advice from the heating engineers on the Navitron forum. The answers were interesting. In short, for an old oil boiler this might help, perhaps 5 to 15% , but for a modern gas boiler it would do very little.

For the cost, you'd really have to consider alternatives instead. You could buy a better oil boiler, or for £8k probably pay for external wall insulation, or even internal wall insulation and redecorating (assuming CWI isn't possible). Or buy an £8 jumper and turn the stat down a few degrees more.

In short for most people, and certainly those with GCH, this is a bad, bad idea. Personally I'm really into using less energy full stop, but I'd go as far as to point out that at only 2% savings account rate, investing £8k gives you £160 of extra gas to burn each year ...... though hardly green.

Mart.

Hi Mart,

no i wasnt trying to spin it anyway just acting as a voice for the other side of the fence that is all.

I was being conservitive regarding the temprature drop due to the actual figure they throw around is, by reducing 1 degree in your thermostaic room temprature in actual fact can save you up to 10% on your anual heating bill. to advertise that would be ludicrist in my opinion but i havenet encountered a firm yet that use these figures yet.

I am not trying to sell the concept to anyone here especially the very bitter people looking for a technical argument.

Mart you are having a civilized conversation about each other views and not delving into the technical aspect which is why i will be happy to talk to regarding this.

You are obviously not at all happy to accept this product and hype around it, however honestly can you answer me one question regardless of the equiptment?

If your central heating system (assuming you have a standerd gas combi boiler) approx 3-4 years old, was power flushed new TRV fitted, a control system installed. Your system pumped 70% faster... your boiler temprature turned to 60 degrees and your thermostat temp turned down 2/3 degree. your boiler actually turning off when temprature is achieved and not on constant.

Do you think combined you could save between 30-50%??? honest answer??

Shaun

Martyn1981

Shaun1986 wrote: »

Hi Mart,

If your central heating system (assuming you have a standerd gas combi boiler) approx 3-4 years old, was power flushed new TRV fitted, a control system installed. Your system pumped 70% faster... your boiler temprature turned to 60 degrees and your thermostat temp turned down 2/3 degree. your boiler actually turning off when temprature is achieved and not on constant.

Do you think combined you could save between 30-50%??? honest answer??

Shaun

Hi Shaun, not trying to be difficult, but yes and no.

First - No, my system is 16 years old, but was flushed and new TRV's fitted recently, so wouldn't help. Also whilst it's not a modern combi, it's still not horrendously in-efficient. Temp settings are already low(ish) at 20deg in the main room, and lower (18(ish)) in the hall and bedrooms. So I couldn't go a lot lower.

Second - Yes, possibly 30%. Breakdown as follows:-
for an older, oversized boiler (mine is now due to increased insulation), a good flush, balance, relocate the roomstat from the hall and a few TRVs should/could give a saving of about 15%.

Turning the room stat down 2 to 3 degrees could give 10 to 15% saving, if it was particularly high, (but savings will suffer from decreasing returns as temps get lower).

So there's your 30% saving, but nothing to do with a magic box, half is from simply using less gas by heating the house less. The other half is from rejuvenating a system that is (naturally) showing its age. Again, no magic.

I'm discounting the magic box, as its cost is far, far greater than simply replacing the gas boiler (or even the entire system) for a modern unit, that can already modulate itself to much lower heat output levels. So even if it could save me a few percent more, even 10% more I'd be better off spending a fraction of the money on a boiler that already does that. In my case an additional 10% saving would be approx £30pa (though I appreciate your points about this being aimed at much higher consumption users (probably old oil boilers)).

[Edit: re-read your question, and you did say "regardless of the equipment", so I suppose I should add the 10% to the 30% giving perhaps 40%. But as I explained further that becomes irrelevant in a modern gas combi. So since a replacement is far far cheaper (than the magic add-on) that would be the way to go.]

If I really wanted to save money on heating, I'd get two sets of trousers and jackets that incorporate battery heating, and recharge the batteries with PV leccy. I'd then turn the heating right down, and present Wifey with her set. However I suspect the cost of the divorce proceedings would be far greater than the gas savings. Not that this has crossed my mind at all!

Mart.

zeupater

Shaun1986 wrote: »

... I am not trying to sell the concept to anyone here especially the very bitter people looking for a technical argument.

.... conversation about each other views and not delving into the technical aspect which is why i will be happy to talk to regarding this ....

Hi

The issue is that without looking at the logic & technicalities of such units consumers/customers wouldn't have a clue whether products which are being offered could possibly perform as a salesman claimed .... after all, in your own opening post you stated "... so lets do the maths.", so that's what I've attempted to do - the maths.

If you truly believe the product would perform as claimed and have ample money to burn in order to find out, go ahead, take a leap of faith and buy one, then don't worry .... but I would have thought that anyone seriously looking at money-saving ideas would be doing so to actually save money and would therefore have a preference for an alternative approach.

I'm seriously asking myself why someone who is debating(/arguing) from 'the other side of the fence' would be doing so unless they either had already purchased one (and would therefore be able to provide details of their own savings) -or- were involved in some way with the manufacturing, sales or marketing of the product ... and I suspect that many others would have the same thoughts considering the £10k price-tag ...

We're pretty much like Mart, having low energy usage. We have a larger than average property which 20(ish) years ago we had absolutely no qualms about burning ~30-40MWh of gas and a couple of tonnes on logs annually to keep warm and provide DHW. Today, having made considerable efficiency improvements and turning the thermostat down a little, we use ~1MWh of gas and a couple of tonnes of logs each year. One of the improvements was the replacement of an old floor standing boiler which was both inefficient when running & burned well over 5kWh/day just to keep the pilot light running, that's around 2MWh of fuel per year which we would still be buying if we hadn't changed the boiler. As it stands, with the mild weather we had last month (March), we used absolutely no gas ...

HTH
Z

Vomityspice

skeptic wrote: »

Hi Folks,

You may be interested in the ASA adjudication below regarding Magic Box who manufacture this. I investigated because they just cold called me and it sounded like a scam of some sort from the outset. How can a pump, controller and a bit of pipe work possibly cost that much or deliver any genuine savings to a system that is running well at the time? It would seem to defy the laws of physics to me, and the ASA are clearly not persuaded either...

I can't post the link, but I'm sure you'll find it easily on the ASA site using the info below.

ASA Adjudication on Magic Thermodynamic Box Ltd
Magic Thermodynamic Box Ltd
Unit 225, Waterhouse Business Park
2 Cromar Way
Chelmsford
Essex
CM1 2QE
Date: 19 March 2014
Media: Internet (on own site)
Sector: Household
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A13-231310
Background
Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

There you go: http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/3/Magic-Thermodynamic-Box-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_231310.aspx

Shaun1986

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The issue is that without looking at the logic & technicalities of such units consumers/customers wouldn't have a clue whether products which are being offered could possibly perform as a salesman claimed .... after all, in your own opening post you stated "... so lets do the maths.", so that's what I've attempted to do - the maths.

If you truly believe the product would perform as claimed and have ample money to burn in order to find out, go ahead, take a leap of faith and buy one, then don't worry .... but I would have thought that anyone seriously looking at money-saving ideas would be doing so to actually save money and would therefore have a preference for an alternative approach.

I'm seriously asking myself why someone who is debating(/arguing) from 'the other side of the fence' would be doing so unless they either had already purchased one (and would therefore be able to provide details of their own savings) -or- were involved in some way with the manufacturing, sales or marketing of the product ... and I suspect that many others would have the same thoughts considering the £10k price-tag ...

We're pretty much like Mart, having low energy usage. We have a larger than average property which 20(ish) years ago we had absolutely no qualms about burning ~30-40MWh of gas and a couple of tonnes on logs annually to keep warm and provide DHW. Today, having made considerable efficiency improvements and turning the thermostat down a little, we use ~1MWh of gas and a couple of tonnes of logs each year. One of the improvements was the replacement of an old floor standing boiler which was both inefficient when running & burned well over 5kWh/day just to keep the pilot light running, that's around 2MWh of fuel per year which we would still be buying if we hadn't changed the boiler. As it stands, with the mild weather we had last month (March), we used absolutely no gas ...

HTH
Z

Hi,

With all due respect zeupater, you can spit out technical information to me or a client and then we can be more confused rather than educated.

When it comes to technical description the only people who need this information is testing bodies and clients who can understand them.

You watch a football match......... you dont sit and wonder what tactics the manager has implement when your winning 2-0. the end result of winning or to compare to magic box would be savings.

Thats why the tests and installed clients are there to offer feed back for the relitively new product to our industry.

I am Scottish and by stereo type i am classed as tight pursed, i have spent £8,500 and my bills have went from around £2200 per annum to around £1237 per annum just on Gas alone. My boiler was 3 years old and was a combi. I have electric showers so the only real use of my gas is the odd bath moderate cooking and heating.

Personally i have looked into the box to how it has managed to same me what it has, i too had my concearns, however do i care if i am saving over £1000 per year.......

so i think the people who want to listen will listen and the people who just are not prepared to listen wont. As it stands the moral to my feed back is all the tech guys on the forum are against it and are giving the product a bad name, however if it works which i clearly does then why bother condeming it for other to read and scare monger?????

SO MY ADVISE TO ANYONE CONCIDERING BUYING THE MAGIC BOX............... Have the assesment find out cost against saving. If the return on the investment is worth concidering then ask the company for 2 people who have had it installed local to were you are. call them and go see the installation and ask them how much they have saved and the thoughts from them. Then and only then make a decisuion on people who have actually expierienced the product and not tech guys sitting on a forum with nothing better to do that bad mouth a product because the believe they can build it cheaper.

Sorry if this offends anyone, however its madness to just tell people it doesnt work with no evidence. Its an injustice.

Shaun

Shaun1986

Vomityspice wrote: »

There you go:

I find this helpful, however i havent seen anyone use these figures. Usually UP TO is use.

This is more likely a result of these rulings. I didnt notice anything about what they are allowed to advertise???

Shaun1986

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

I think the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that it does what it says it does and unfortunately, according to the Advertising Standards Authority, they have spectacularly failed to do so.

Here are two snippets from the recent ASA ruling to back this up:

To substantiate the claim, which was an unqualified claim that the Magic Heating Box would increase the average flow of water passing through a radiator by 70%, we considered Magic Thermodynamic Box needed to hold evidence that demonstrated unambiguously that use of the device would always result in an increase in the average flow of water passing through a radiator by 70%. Because the evidence they had supplied did not demonstrate that, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

To substantiate the claim, we considered Magic Thermodynamic Box needed to hold evidence that demonstrated that, because of more effective performance, a comparable amount of heat would be delivered from the radiators despite reducing the boiler temperature to 60°C. Because the evidence they had supplied did not demonstrate that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.


I understand. I was just keen to understand what figure it did produce although only in 2 testing envioroments.

Only think i would ask is, Thermodynamic Box is not the same as the Heating Box????

Thermodynamics is a system commonly used for hot water through Refrigerant gas??

so are we talking about the same product here??? I know they are still same manufacturer, however seperate products.

Is this just use of the company name?? just not very clear.

Shaun

zeupater

Shaun1986 wrote: »

....
Only think i would ask is, Thermodynamic Box is not the same as the Heating Box????

Thermodynamics is a system commonly used for hot water through Refrigerant gas??

Hi

Thermodynamics would include the study of the rate of transfer of heat (/energy) between two bodies which could be of different substances (therefore masses) relative to the area of contact along with the requirements for change of state.

Effectively energy is conserved, so you can't get more out than you put in .... which is why such system claims are usually treated with scepticism ... With refrigerant systems (Heat-pumps etc) the energy balance is conserved by using energy to transfer energy from elsewhere ...

Regarding the 'technical information' - without having a clue what is possible and what isn't consumers can easily be mislead. I am currently using a computer with a certain technical specification which leads me to believe that it with run the applications which I choose to use, something which a machine with a different processing chipset may not be able to do, therefore it's pretty useful to know 'some' technicalities .... as for the 'football' match .... to someone who hasn't a clue of the 'rules' of football, watching the match wouldn't be as enjoyable or interesting as it would be to one even with a basic knowledge - that doesn't mean that you need to know the specific strategy, just the basic rules ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

Shaun1986 wrote: »

.... Usually UP TO is use. ...

Hi

The term 'up to' is a get-out clause for the marketing team to protect themselves from legislation designed to protect consumers.

We've all seen posters advertising sales in the format of ...

SALE
ALL ITEMS
up to
50% OFF

... it's a classic mistake for the consumer to scan the 'headline' and completely misinterpret the true meaning of what is being conveyed - this is exactly what marketing departments all over the world rely on ... from a morality standpoint it's misleading, but including the term 'up to' intentionally breaks the link between the two claims from a legal aspect ...

Now, let's look at the effect of a thermal buffer in a normal heating system .... It would be possible to conduct a test where an in-line store of pre-heated water would boost the effective output of a boiler to an extent where the full heating provision to a thermostatic set-point can be met faster. Let's assume that the total space-heat requirement is 10kWh in a normal (boiler only) situation and that with a 'special buffer' 5kWh is immediately delivered by the store & 5kWh from the boiler ... looking at just one cycle it would be possible to claim that the 'buffer' being in place saved 50% of the energy needed to be purchased on this cycle - of course, the buffer would be depleted at the end of the cycle meaning that the next time the 'buffer' would have a 'cold' start and would require around 15kWh of heat input to achieve the same space-heating provision. Overall, the addition of the 'buffer' would have little long-term effect, however, the claim could still be made for energy savings of 'up to' 50%, probably with the inclusion of a clause stating something like - 'depending on individual usage'

HTH
Z