Monoflow Continuous Circulation System

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:07 pm

franco b wrote: He also has an aquastat. By lowering the water temperature the pump will run longer and more frequently, better equalizing temperatures through the system. The mains would stay warm. In colder weather the pump would run non stop and the radiators would not get hot enough. Then would be the time to raise the water temperature enough to regain adequate heat. This tweaking of the aquastat is something he said he is willing to do. He can balance one loop against the other by somewhat restricting the better performing loop with the valve on the return. Less energy will go into that loop but more into the other. We are not restricting both loops or all radiators, only encouraging circulation to poorer performing areas.
Lowering the boilers operating temperature will do two things. One, risk DHW production and two, reduce available energy in the loop which will drive up response time. It does nothing to cure his basic problem.
He must raise and retain the level of heat in both the primary and secondary loops or he is chasing the dragon.


 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:09 pm

franco b wrote:
coaledsweat wrote:In his current arsenal he has only one weapon to fight this problem, the pump.
He also has an aquastat. By lowering the water temperature the pump will run longer and more frequently, better equalizing temperatures through the system. The mains would stay warm. In colder weather the pump would run non stop and the radiators would not get hot enough. Then would be the time to raise the water temperature enough to regain adequate heat. This tweaking of the aquastat is something he said he is willing to do. He can balance one loop against the other by somewhat restricting the better performing loop with the valve on the return. Less energy will go into that loop but more into the other. We are not restricting both loops or all radiators, only encouraging circulation to poorer performing areas.

Richard
From what ive noticed over the last week is that both branches of the loop seem to heat pretty evenly. My thermostat is in the foyer and only has half a ceiling due to the stairway to the second floor. I can go from room to room on the first floor and the temps are all just about the same. when I walk into the foyer, it is at least 2 degrees cooler. same deal upstaris on the second floor. all of the 4 bedrooms heat the same and so does the bathroom. but the hall way is colder. the third floor only has to rads and those two rooms are usually only a degree or so different. there is a big room between the two rooms on the third floor that doesnt have a radiator, but that room is where the steps lead up to from the second floor and there is about 20 feet of cabinets and drawers for storage up there. that area doesnt need to be warm. so I guess is what im getting to is that, it seems to me the house is fairly balanced ... the coldest room being the room that houses the thermostat. maybe that is how it is suppose to be.

 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:11 pm

coaledsweat wrote:
franco b wrote: He also has an aquastat. By lowering the water temperature the pump will run longer and more frequently, better equalizing temperatures through the system. The mains would stay warm. In colder weather the pump would run non stop and the radiators would not get hot enough. Then would be the time to raise the water temperature enough to regain adequate heat. This tweaking of the aquastat is something he said he is willing to do. He can balance one loop against the other by somewhat restricting the better performing loop with the valve on the return. Less energy will go into that loop but more into the other. We are not restricting both loops or all radiators, only encouraging circulation to poorer performing areas.
Lowering the boilers operating temperature will do two things. One, risk DHW production and two, reduce available energy in the loop which will drive up response time. It does nothing to cure his basic problem.
My only problem with keeping the boiler hot all of the time is that, wont that consume more coal, but on the upside keep a more even temp throughout the house?
coaledsweat wrote:He must raise and retain the level of heat in both the primary and secondary loops or he is chasing the dragon.
and we all know how much fun that journey can be :partyhat:

 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:14 pm

LsFarm wrote:A Monoflow system depends on fairly rapid flow of water to circulate any water into each of the branch-off radiators. This won't happen with slow flow from gravity. And gravity flow won't happen because the monoflow loop never cools down, creating the denser cooler water that creates the 'gravity'. The radiators are offshoots of the main loop and no water will flow through those without a good velocity flow of water through the monoflow tees. It just wont happen with out flow velocity.
So nix the gravity flow.
Greg, maybe I missed something here, but why doesnt the monoflow loop never cool down. mine does, when the thermostat hasnt called for heat for an hour. then it runs for an hour and a half.
LsFarm wrote:It was discussed early on, to NOT mess with the radiator valves, due to the probablilty of leaks and breakage.. Patience was suggested. Patience was not practiced.
i am not a patient person, but I am trying really really hard.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:21 pm

brckwlt wrote:My only problem with keeping the boiler hot all of the time is that, wont that consume more coal, but on the upside keep a more even temp throughout the house?
You won't be keeping it "hot" all the time, it will be operating at a temperature that it designed too, as it should be. Those massive slugs of cold water are not what that boiler was designed to heat, that is where all your coal is going.

 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:36 pm

coaledsweat wrote:
brckwlt wrote:My only problem with keeping the boiler hot all of the time is that, wont that consume more coal, but on the upside keep a more even temp throughout the house?
You won't be keeping it "hot" all the time, it will be operating at a temperature that it designed too, as it should be. Those massive slugs of cold water are not what that boiler was designed to heat, that is where all your coal is going.
Didnt franco b just say that start up uses less then ...
franco b wrote:His conclusion in heating homes was that setback always saves. Comfort is another matter.
or did I miss interpret that

either way coaledsweat I think what your saying makes sense. at least it does to me.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:46 pm

brckwlt wrote: Didnt franco b just say that start up uses less then ...
franco b wrote:His conclusion in heating homes was that setback always saves. Comfort is another matter.
or did I miss interpret that

either way coaledsweat I think what your saying makes sense. at least it does to me.
Not sure about the startup reference, could you quote it? Setback is just turning the heat down at night. Of course that will save fuel.


 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 7:55 pm

coaledsweat wrote:
brckwlt wrote: Didnt franco b just say that start up uses less then ... or did I miss interpret that

either way coaledsweat I think what your saying makes sense. at least it does to me.
Not sure about the startup reference, could you quote it? Setback is just turning the heat down at night. Of course that will save fuel.
If I set back a few degrees over night wont the boiler just have to play catch up in the morning then ... so wouldnt that consume the same amount of fuel?

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 8:14 pm

brckwlt wrote:If I set back a few degrees over night wont the boiler just have to play catch up in the morning then ... so wouldnt that consume the same amount of fuel?
No, they are talking about setting back the room thermostat at night while you sleep if I'm not mistaken. I personally would not operate a boiler at a lower temperature than you are at right now.

 
User avatar
brckwlt
Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue. Jan. 27, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Sunbury, PA

Post by brckwlt » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 8:22 pm

nooo I mean the thermostat... instead of having it at 70 at night turn it back to 67 or whatever then in the morning turn it back up to 70. I was just asking if doing that would end up burning more coal since you have to play catch up in the morning.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 8:37 pm

brckwlt wrote:nooo I mean the thermostat... instead of having it at 70 at night turn it back to 67 or whatever then in the morning turn it back up to 70. I was just asking if doing that would end up burning more coal since you have to play catch up in the morning.
Nope, franco b was correct, setback will save fuel. I think his point was even if you have to push the boiler to get back up to temp, setback saves.

I personally do not set back 'cause my feet don't like it. :)

 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Sun. Dec. 06, 2009 10:48 pm

I think there is too much for you to try and digest too quickly.

A brief review: Coaledsweat early on recommended a fix that would work just fine. For cost and other considerations you felt you could not do it at this time. In an effort to simulate that system, at least somewhat, I made other suggestions as did Sting and others. What may seem like disagreement is really more where each places more weight. If we were sitting around a table I think consensus could be reached without too much bloodletting. When you work in a field, especially if there is a bit of pressure involved, you tend to hang on to what works for you like grim death.

You have a long thread to read. Greg's advice is good that you experiment and keep notes of what you do. Perhaps we can all learn something.

Concerning insulating the boiler and the maker saying it was not necessary; I suspect they meant that the boiler would work well without it and were not considering heat loss.
Good Luck,

Richard

 
cabinover
Member
Posts: 2344
Joined: Wed. Feb. 04, 2009 7:13 am
Location: Fair Haven, VT
Stoker Coal Boiler: Hybrid Axeman Anderson 130
Baseburners & Antiques: Sparkle #12
Coal Size/Type: Pea, Buckwheat, Nut
Other Heating: LP Hot air. WA TX for coal use.

Post by cabinover » Fri. Dec. 11, 2009 9:48 am

Glad I waited until after vacation to revisit this thread, my eyes would have exploded trying to read it on an Ipod Touch.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Fri. Dec. 11, 2009 11:34 am

franco b wrote: Concerning insulating the boiler and the maker saying it was not necessary; I suspect they meant that the boiler would work well without it and were not considering heat loss.
There is very little heat loss from an Axeman. I was stunned after replacing my hand fired boiler with an Axeman this year, that the cellar became cold in comparison. An obvious difference in the room above the boiler too. It is on the north side of the house and it is noticeably cooler, especially the floors. The cellar is dry and warmer than on the oil burner, but what a huge difference. Insulating is not only a waste of time and money on an Axeman, it will break up its beautiful visual lines. :roll:

 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Fri. Dec. 11, 2009 5:12 pm

Must be something else heating his basement to 65 degrees then.


Post Reply

Return to “Coal Bins, Chimneys, CO Detectors & Thermostats”