I am a firm believer that a micro-bubbler like the spirovent is more important at lower water temps due to cooler water being harder to get the air out.
Remove the loop with the air vent. Just another place to suck air in if pressure drops. The spirovent is all you need.
I would probably consider a single zone instead of two zones since the second floor zone is so small. Then just balance. Better chance of modulation and consistently lower water temps allowed.

 

I thought about that but the upstairs is colder then downstairs. But only used for sleeping. Its a cape cod and the ceiling is the roof if you know what I mean.The heat from downstairs rises. I keep the t stat at 65 up there and the temp hoovers around 67 in the winter. Downsstairs 70. 72 when it gets colder.

That would make it 88ft. Loop lengths should be a max of what length or btu?

We will see.....

Mike NJ

 

You can split it into two loops but 1 zone with balancing valves so you can control the flow to both areas. As I said many times increase flow increase output, decrease flow decrease output from the radiation.
Just another idea as you already know there are options galore.

 

"Old Betsy" Cast iron burner. Cant find that no more.....







Mike NJ

 

Spirovent or Taco 4900. Put it where the installation manual says to put it.

 

I have another question, I am not flow and head smart so I just figured this out tonight and want to see if I am right.

Make sure I have the right circ. Orginally had a b&g 100. Changed it to taco 007 just to save electric several years ago. Did no figuring at the time. Just assumed and I had it in my extra parts bin.

Flow = btu/temp drop.

Is the btu my element on the longest loop?

Example 68 ft element x 500 = 37400?

Then 37400 / 20x500 (temp drop) = 3.74 gpm?

----------------------------------------------------------
TEL = 1.5x circuit length. That would be the element length of my longest loop 68 ft?

68 ft x 1.5 = TEL @ 102? or the total pipe run of the longet loop x 1.5?
150 ft x 1.5 = TEL @ 225?

---------------------------------------------------------
Head = TEL x .04.

TEL 102 x .04 = 4.08 ft head?
TEL 225 x .04 = 9 ft head?


-------------------------------------------------------
Summary

3.74 gpm @ 4.2 or 9 ft of head?
And what pump? I see Taco 006, is closer if I am at 4.2 ft head. 005,007 if I am at 9 ft head. Although the 007 looks right on if its 9 ft and 3.74 gpm.

Just throw the 007 in, and I am talking out my arse here and wasted my time typing this right??????

Unless I did the btu wrong...

I probably should of just asked what pump to use.



Mike NJ

 

For simple fin-tube systems like yours, flow rate calcs are overrated.

The 1.5x and /0.04 method is hugely conservative for fin-tube and most often results in oversizing the circulator. A better way is given here:
http://www.taco-hvac.com/uploads/Fil...irculators.pdf

or use something like Siggy's HDS software. But again, for your system that's overkill.

A 007 would be fine. But with a modcon, you are going to be striving for constant circulation, so in NJ with high electric cost, I suggest a Grundfos Alpha or Wilo ECO. (If Taco's Bumblebee was out, that too, but it ain't yet.) The circ is going to run A LOT.

In fin-tube systems, flow rate has small effect on output. Look at Slantfin 30 for example. At 180F, 1 gpm flow is only 5% less output than 4 gpm. But reducing water temp by 10F reduces output by 12%.

In most simple residential fin-tube systems, just keep the water moving fast enough to get any entrained air to the elimination point. That's around 2-4 ft/sec or 3-6 gpm in 3/4" pipe. But once the air is out, 1 gpm or so is generally fine.

 

Those pumps are expensive. Unfortunatly I would not have the cash to invest in one of those.

The 007 is .71 amps at 120 volts = 85 watts. At .17 cents a kW that would be $10 a month if it ran 24/7.

The Grunfos is .65 amps so I dont think it would be much savings for the $200 price tag.

I guess I could deal with that.

I read the preset curve for FTB is 160F boiler, if temp is 25F outside and 90F if 70F outside. I guess it does everything inbetween. Dont really know????

I also see the boiler is set for 33% lowest modulation. I dont know why its not set to modulate to its lowest setting. I would change that to the min at 20%. That is the lowest it can be set. I would leave it at the 160F high to try it out.

Again still waiting for the phone call.....

Also my slant fin heatloss calc was at about 20000 btu first floor and 10000 btu second but in the totals section it added 10000 btu to the total. Is that normal? So my total heatloss is about 40000 btu.

Just wondering.

Mike NJ

 

I think the Grundphos Alpha is .65 amps max. It automatically adjusts itself to run with the lowest power based on system performance. I'm guessing it senses deltaT or something.

 

No... you probably have another 'room' or 'floor' ... check the tabs in the program.

 

No all rooms are correct. I went through every room and double check.

1st floor roms total 19979. 2nd floor room totals 9699. = 29678.

But the job total says 40689. I would think they are adding a margin. But its like 35%!!!

Anyone else use that program?

I read the help file and it does not say anything.

Mike NJ

 

I just checked my heatloss calc and it only added the 2 floors, no extra!

 

I just checked the couple jobs I've got loaded and they all total correctly.

Click the down arrow for 'Floors' and make sure you haven't got an extra one there.

 

Angelo,

You used the slant fin one?

Mike NJ

 

Something is wrong. I've used that Slant/Fin program several times, and never encountered what you describe. There is a margin built into the program, but it is invisible - and shouldn't be added on to. I would start a whole new case with your input data.

 

Yes, 0.65 amps max. Mine runs at 6 watts. For a small fin-tube system, 6-8 Watts is a reasonable expectation. That's 93% less juice. Run it 14 hr/day for 8 months, and it's $47 for the 007 and $3.50 for the Alpha. Simple payback in 3-ish years?

Never had that slantfin problem. Possible you have a setting wrong?

 

yep I used Slant fin which I downloaded years ago

 

Ok yeah dont know what happen there. It was like another floor was there but I could not see it or delete it.

Anyway I deleted everything and reinstalled it. I also figured out that for the windows I was putting in feet. It wants it in inches. I took my time and measured everything and put in all calculations that I thought where true. Such as cold partitions behind the knee walls on the 2nd floor.

When you do the ceilings for the firstfloor you cant do half and half heated and not heated. I just inputed a small loss factor. So I kind of fudged were I had to make it realistic.

Heck its only a 1050 square ft 1950's cape. Shouldnt take much to heat.

The oringinal heat was a grate in the floor type heater, and a hole in the ceiling with a register to let some heat upstairs......

Anyway new calculation. The windows in inches added like 7000 btu to the overall.

1 st floor 24,922
2 nd floor 10,413

= 35,335 btu

Thats at 180 water temp, 0 degree outdoor 70 degree indoor.

The ultra 80 modulation sets as low as 20% which is 16 MBH. Again I assume the ultra will be better then say a CGI series?

Remember my total gas bill for the year with the old boiler, HWH, stove and dryer is only $924 a yr

Its my electric bill I want to reduce. Well, pump, pool pump, this boiler would be two circulators...... Just seems it might be a money pit. Hey.. The new GV 90 has three circs...LOL. What you save in gas you pay double in electric.

The ultra will have two circulators, a $40 maintanace kit every yr, expensive electronics that is they go bad cost big $$$$. Aluminum heat exchanger. Remember the whole point is I am on a well.

I dont even know if I will have an option, but the CGI is IBR 37,000 btu. 84 % afue. Induced draft.

http://www.weil-mclain.com/en/multim...gi/cgi_lit.pdf

And I really like the regular vent and standing pilot. Less crap to go wrong. This is 81% afue and 38000 IBR.

http://www.weil-mclain.com/en/multim...ga/CGa_lit.pdf

Ugggg!!!!!! """"""Calgon take me away""""""!!!!!!!!!!

Mike NJ

 

Didn't you say it has to be better than 90% AFUE? I would doubt they would do less 85% AFUE which I believe is the minimum for energy star.

 

Its supposed to be 90% or better. But I remember when I was working for the company that installs them, the ultra would have been way oversized in one home I believe. Even though it modulates. Not really sure the reason, but they put a regular gold series in. Possibly the guy did not want it. But they have to put something in. They only replace when the fail CO/CO2 testing.

I just dont want to make the wrong decision. Yeah the ultra would be cool to have but do I need it? Will it cost me more in the long run? I mean it will have two taco 007's.

But I just figured it out.

( two tacos ) 1.42 amp x 120v = 170.4 watts x 24 hours = 4089 watts a day / 1000 = 4.89 x .17 cents kwh = 83 cents a day. $24 a month. One pump would be $12 a month.

What do you think. If save $12 a month or $144 a yr off my gas bill with the ultra it will be a wash. The savings go to the electric bill. I would need to save more then that.

Whats the real expectations in gas savings with the ultra? It would have to run at 50% to match the CG series btu wise.

Thats how I figure it. I think this way because I am alittle nuts. I worked for Lucent technologies as a bean counter in the engineering / R&D labs tracking widgets. I wasnt always a plumber. Just incase your wondering why I am obsessed with processes and being analytical.

But I worked with alot of PHD's that I think were really nutty. Most could write the formula for the "space time continuum" but didnt know how to tie their shoes... Im not kidding either.

Mike NJ

 

Mike, you have discovered the dirty little secret that the high and mighty don't want us common folk to know; high efficiency does not always translate into best economy.

Whether it is replacement windows, tankless water heaters or 90+% furnaces the time to pay back the original investment is often measured in DECADES and far too often there is no real payback. Sure, your gas bill may go down slightly but the electricity bill goes up or the interest you pay on the loan to finance the upgrades eats all the savings or, or, or...

In your particular case I would avoid that aluminum heat exchanger like it was smallpox. With your low heat load I would also not consider a modulating burner.

 

Yeah..Thats if the pumps run most of the time. And lets add the $45 for yearly maintanace kit and inhibitor at $30 bucks.

I would need the ultra to save me $144 + 45 + 30 = $219 a yr to break even bills wise. Remeber I may not be paying for the unit but am on a very fixed income bills wise

All opinions accepted....

Thanks Furd, at least I feel better that I am not that off line in my thinking.

Its like that show where they fix or build a new house for people, then the people realize they cant afford thier increased mortgage and go into forclosure...

Mike NJ

 

When estimating the annual power requirements of a single-speed centrifugal pump, such as a Taco 007, it can be very misleading to use the nameplate's rated current or horsepower. That is the maximum, which occurs toward a pump's runout condition. At other points on the pump curve, the electric power consumed will be less.

The power consumed by a pump is flow x head, divided by motor and pump effienciencies. At any typical operating point of, say, a 007, the power will be quite a bit less than nameplate.

 

Put a meter on a couple sometime. They draw pretty high under a wide range of conditions. Not saying it's always nameplate by any means. Even if the example above is off by a factor of two, that is still decent payback, even assuming constant electric prices.

(Not bashing the venerable 007, either. Have one on my solar DHW and one on my indirect....)

This article is also interesting regarding circulators.
The Biggest Loser

 

Can you use the alpha pump as the boiler circulator also? Or just on the circuit.

Mike NJ

 

You could. Pick a fixed speed that gives the flow rate W-M wants.

 

An induction motor that is running relatively unloaded, below rated power, will see the power factor decline. Measuring the amps will include an increased portion of reactive current, which doesn't count toward real power consumption. And also, much of the electrical power supplied to the pump winds up in the piping system in the form of thermal friction (although, of course, electricity is more expensive, per Btu, than oil or gas).

 

Does a permanent split capacitor motor qualify as an induction motor? Because I think that the modern circs all are PSC... might work the same way with the power factor? I don't know... curious...

 

A PSC motor is an induction motor. It's similar to a split-phase motor (which has a start winding that switches out when the motor comes up to speed) - except there is a capacitor, too, to provide addtional starting torque. The "start" winding, with the cap, stays permanently in the circuit rather than being switched out. PSC is one of several "kludges," including capacitor start, to allow a single-phase induction motors to develop starting torque - otherwise, a single-phase motor would just hum and never start.

Once a single-phase motor starts, it should operate like any other induction motor.

An induction motor draws two components of current and power: real and reactive, 90 deg out of phase. Only the real is, well, "real" - that is, you pay for it. An induction motor draws essentially the same reactive power whether fully loaded or lightly loaded - but the real power and current are reduced as the motor load declines. When you measure the motor amps with an ammeter, you are measuring the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed by the real and reactive amps. As the real amps drop with motor load, the measured amps don't drop nearly as much because the "total" amps become, proportionately, more reactive. (Reactive power doesn't show up on your wattmeter.)

I can visualize all this in my head, but explaining it is difficult for me.

 

I think you did a good job explaining... better than I could! I do have a feel for power factor and such, so it make sense to me. Just not too hip on the different kinds of motors.

Thanks for the explain Doc!

 

Makes sense to me as well. Thanks.

 

OK. Boiler tune up guy came. Vacuumed the boiler here and there. Did not think he was doing much of anything really.

These hydrotherms have a plate on the top so you really cant get a brush in there after you remove the flue. He did not even remove the burner. Hmmm...

Well CO was a 280ppm as was before by the other people before his little cleaning excapade..

Baaammm!!! He said you are not going to like this...

[IMG][/IMG]


He got it down to 7 ppm. What the &%$#!!!!

81.1% eff ??? Not bad for 30 yr old boiler.

So not getting a new boiler. Heck I bet this boiler out lives me.

He did adjust a large screw slightly to fine tune the CO level more. This was the large screw just below the gas valve knob. A large flat blade screw the size of a dime. Although I adjusted the pilot adjusters b efore I never adjusted for the main burner. Is this what that actually is for?

See the long part sticking out under the gas valve knob.

[IMG][/IMG]

So anyway, I read all that %$#@ about aluminum heat exchangers and water quality for zilch. But I did end up doing a heat loss of the home and gained some knowledge. And if this boiler does go, I know I am getting a nice simple CGA 25 or equivlent. Standing pilot and all. Less to go wrong.

Residential Gas-fired Boiler | CGa Gas Boiler | Weil-McLain


I am kind of glad I am not getting the ultra. Me and old "Betsy" , see, we have kind of a personal relationship. I just cant give her up. I have spent many a winter nights in that boilerroom sipping cold ones and watching here fire over and over. Ahhh memories... I going out there now to smoke a stogie and wipe down the her old rusty panels.....

*uses sleeve to wipe tears from eyes*


Is'nt that what lifes about???



Next is windows and crawlspace sealing. Waiting for them to call next.

Mike NJ

 

This MAY be the pressure regulator adjustment. It is possible that you have been overfiring the boiler for years.

Honestly, unless you know when the combustion analyzer was last put through a full calibration the figures are suspect. The oxygen seems high and the carbon dioxide low. The net stack temperature also seems low for that boiler. How long did the boiler fire while he took the readings?

As for the windows vs. the crawlspace sealing...I'd go for the crawl sealing long before new windows.

 

He took his official readings and got his own read out. I just asked for a read out after the fact. He just stuck the snuffer in there and got a basic reading for me.

What are the levels supposed to be?

Mike NJ

 

By not allowing the stack temperature to stabilize the readings are all skewed in favor of a higher efficiency. One of the problems with residential boilers is the inability to have them fire for a long enough period of time to allow the stack temperature to stabilize. Had the technician left the unit to fire for a good ten or fifteen minutes the stack temperature (both gross and net) would have likely been at least 100 degrees higher and THAT would have given more accurate, and lower, "efficiency" ratings.

The carbon dioxide level at 6.4 percent is low, should be closer to 9 percent or better. The oxygen at 9.3 percent is high, should be around 4 to 6 percent. The combustion efficiency (NOT boiler or system efficiency) is totally bogus since the stack temperature had not reached a steady state. I would guess that combustion efficiency is more likely in the low 70 percent range.

Note also that the "calculated CO" reading is 12%, not the 7% "raw" data. The 12% figure is calculated as if there were no excess oxygen in the flue gases and is the proper figure to use when reporting CO. Since the readings were all taken with a burner that had not achieved steady state combustion all the readings are suspect.

Still, about what I would expect from that boiler.

 

I see some galvanized pipe and fittings in you natural gas piping. Some areas do not allow galvanized, only black pipe. I think the concern is the sulfur concentration of the gas. And, I think galvanizing may be more likely to flake off in plug orfices, etc.

 

Galv is required outdoors in this state as far as I know. So its kind of a oxymoron. I have one fitting that was leaking and replaced it with what I had.

I will be 6ft under before i worry about flakes.

Mike NJ