Crane oil boiler
#1
10-27-06, 09:18 AM
Crane oil boiler
Putting a Beckett AF burner on this old Crane boiler. I figure to go with the 97000 water BTU/per hr rating a .75 nozzle would be just about right, what do you guys think.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f98/gonogo/IMG_0359_1_1.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f98/gonogo/IMG_0359_1_1.jpg
#2
10-27-06, 09:41 AM
If I look at that picture I see it call for a 1.25 Nozzle??????? What do you have in the old gun now??? Thats a big jump down to a .75????
Also look and see how the chamber is and what size nozzle and angle it can take.
ED
Also look and see how the chamber is and what size nozzle and angle it can take.
ED
#3
10-27-06, 11:59 AM
A 1.25 nozzle in a Beckett AF input is 175,000 btu, a little on the heavy side I think. I haven’t looked at the other nozzle yet or chamber size, just getting some information together.
#5
10-27-06, 12:16 PM
Now this is going from a low speed burner 1750 to the 3450 Beckett AF, so I thought the efficiency of the new burner would be a smaller nozzle for equal BTU’s. I think it would be right to keep the same angle as it has now for chamber size.
#9
10-27-06, 08:48 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Delaware, The First State
Posts: 12,667
Received 39 Upvotes
on
37 Posts
Crane/Beckett
IF the burner is new & the pump pressure is set at anything other than 100#, there will be a sticker on it stating the pump pressure setting.
If you are firing @ 1.25 with the old burner, I don't think I would drop any lower than 1.00 - 1.10 gph with the new burner.
If you are firing @ 1.25 with the old burner, I don't think I would drop any lower than 1.00 - 1.10 gph with the new burner.
#10
10-28-06, 02:21 AM
Thanks Ed and Grady. Rechecking the .75 would not be enough btu’s at 100 psi, it would need to be 140 psi, too much for a Beckett AF.
Grady you think the 1 gph at input of 140,000 btu would not be too high for water rating of 97,000 btu.
Grady you think the 1 gph at input of 140,000 btu would not be too high for water rating of 97,000 btu.
#11
10-28-06, 10:48 AM
Originally Posted by slls
Thanks Ed and Grady. Rechecking the .75 would not be enough btu’s at 100 psi, it would need to be 140 psi, too much for a Beckett AF.
Grady you think the 1 gph at input of 140,000 btu would not be too high for water rating of 97,000 btu.
Grady you think the 1 gph at input of 140,000 btu would not be too high for water rating of 97,000 btu.
Secondly, Consider the thermal efficiancy of this boiler, the input is 175,000 btuh and the IBR net rating is 97,000, compare that to a newer design boiler at 175,000, the net rating would be 131,000 (ref Peerless WBV4) at todays energy prices I would not sink any more money into such a unit.
#13
10-28-06, 06:56 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Delaware, The First State
Posts: 12,667
Received 39 Upvotes
on
37 Posts
slls
You are confusing input & output. The 97k is output with an input of 1.25 gph (175,000 btu/hr). This 97,000 takes into account the combustion efficiency of the burner/boiler, the boilers ability to transfer heat from the flame to the water, & heat loss thru the jacket etc. Hopefully Hello will correct me if I am mistaken but as I understand I=B=R ratings, they reflect only that heat which is available to be put thru the pipes.
In a nutshell, no, I don't think 1.00-1.10 would be too much.
Hello, your thoughts?
In a nutshell, no, I don't think 1.00-1.10 would be too much.
Hello, your thoughts?
#14
10-29-06, 11:04 AM
I get it now, what confused me was the amount of input needed on this boiler to get water to 97,000. I had a furnace from that era that was a lot more efficient than this Crane.
I am learning some about boilers, never had to opportunity to work on one until now, it’s for my daughter.
I am going to try the one gph and use the angle and type of the one already installed. I figure the angle in there now will be a match for the combustion chamber. What do you think?
I am learning some about boilers, never had to opportunity to work on one until now, it’s for my daughter.
I am going to try the one gph and use the angle and type of the one already installed. I figure the angle in there now will be a match for the combustion chamber. What do you think?
#17
12-09-06, 11:09 AM
Update : Installed the Beckett AF in the old boiler. The nozzle in it was a 1.0 gal, the local burner man told me to use a .75 to replace. Replaced F6 cap with a F3. Wired by the old stack switch, jumpered the TT on the burner and been going good ever since. Thanks for the reply’s.
#18
12-18-06, 07:34 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Easton, PA
Posts: 3,015
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
I'm coming into this way late but you did exactly what I was about to suggest. The 1.25 gph nozzle was for a burner that was lucky to achieve 75% efficiency. When the rule of thumb was 100,000btus net for 1gph. Now it is more like 121,000btus for 1gph. I would have recommended the .75 and would have advised against the F6 head. That head is worthless unless you are firing between 1.25 and 1.65 in my opinion. The F3 is the best choice for your firing rate. You also might consider using the low firing rate baffle in the burner. It may help slow the flue gasses through the giant open heat exchanger in that boiler. All in all, I'm glad things are working properly.
Ken
Ken
#19
12-19-06, 09:39 AM
Thanks for the reply, was wondering about the low firing rate baffle. It's going good so I think I will let it go for now.
You are right that is a monster, daughter is not in a position to replace the unit at this time. I would think it is a very wasteful unit to supply hot water in the summer.
You are right that is a monster, daughter is not in a position to replace the unit at this time. I would think it is a very wasteful unit to supply hot water in the summer.
