From OWB to EFM520 Installed in Truck Box

windy,

take a deep breath, step back look at what you did and feel good about it! As Rob mentioned scott's post sounded more like frustration than conceit . No system, in my experience, has achieved nirvana right out of the gate. Sometimes thats because of inexperience, budget constraints, time limitations , on and on.... The point is ;its an ongoing process and in your case youll be doing a lot less work than before and spending less money on fuel , and that is a great feeling that we ALL can appreciate and recall with a smile.

Regards,
waldo

windyhill4.2 wrote: I am so baffled & dumfounded that Sting,Pacowy,franco b,McGiever, Rob R.,Mark(pa) ,Lu47 Dan,Stoker Don & many others,titliest1... where is my memory bank ... but to think that what those guys all said was nothing !!! WHERE IS MY GRAINS OF SALT ????

Sorry

I try to help when I am sober and awake
You're not always gonna get the right answer, or the answer you're looking for because everyone answers questions differently. If your questions are really something you want to know then there's no wrong way you can ask them. Just ask them and you'll probably get some good answers along the way. This thread has gotten a bit long to digest - maybe it would be more beneficial to your wonderful project [ and lots easier for me at least] if you could start a new thread for each specific drama you would like to address.

Kind regards
Sting

No one has asked you to play dead. Get the rest of the system in the box insulated and report back with the results.

Scott's idea about jumping the TT terminals is a good one. You could put a toggle switch on the side of the aquastat and hook it to the TT terminals. You could set the low limit at 160 and the high at 185, when you turn the switch on the boiler will maintain 175-185, when the switch is off it will maintain 150-160...think of it as a low/high switch.

WH....as Waldo said take a deep breath you have achieved a ton in your transition from the OWB....

Somebody once said everybody hates it when they call your baby ugly..... Don't worry, your baby ain't ugly but just might only need a bath or change of a diaper to clean it up a little! You're obviously thrilled with the easier workload of the coal boiler versus the OWB (and rightfully so) so the inefficiencies are easy to overlook at this point, but as time goes by you will look to improve in those areas.

If $$, time and labor were in unlimited supply we all might redo some part of the system we are currently using based on what we have learned to improve efficiency. (Hey - Stoker Don is improving his efficiency by having two different size stokers in his boiler for the different heat loads during the different seasons!!!) I wouldn't expect you to dig up your pex and redo it since it apparently worked for you last year however inefficient it may or may not have been. That may or may not be an area of improvement you look to in a few years to lower your coal usage.

I reread a couple pages of posts and did not see where there was any shock and awe on your part about the amount of coal being used, maybe I missed it. I read what I took as normal desire to dial in a new system and not be wasteful - insulating the boiler and adjacent piping, making sure the burn looked right, asking about the amount of fines, alternate coal source burn characteristics etc, etc.

Scott may have a good suggestion or two in his posts as you tweak your system to make it more efficient and also able to provide the most efficient BTU's that will be necessary as the weather gets colder. Don't throw out all he says just because you don't like the presentation. Or if it bothers you that much there is always the ignore function. There is plenty of experience and participation from others on the forum to cover any question you have.

Rob & Mike make a good point about measuring coal usage based on the teeth you are set (or will be set at) at to make sure you have planned for enough coal.

Thanks, waldo & Sting. Rob,are we talking about the tt on the timer or is there a tt on the aquastat as well,i did not yet get to ck it this a/m. I was very tired last evening from 5 pm on & didn't get any more done to the project. Just to make it very clear to anyone reading this thread, we are very happy with this project so far ,even if Scott isn't. We have seen a vast reduction in the work load related to our dhw & heating needs,we will see a reduction in the $$ spent for fuel , from the amount of wood we bought to the lesser amount of coal we are using. Again,thanks to all,& thanks to Scott for bringing us relief with this EFM520 boiler. Maybe I will try to take my wife's suggestion of totally ignoring negative,non-construtive posts & pretend I do not even see them. I am not saying that all criticism is wrong but to put "factual" in that is totally false is unacceptable.To post "facts" about our system without even understanding how it is set up or how it works & without giving us a fair amount of time to get things finished & dialed in & then after all is done & time has passed & usage rate established,THEN we can talk about reasonable things that could be done . Until then WE will enjoy our new freedom !

The TT terminals I was talking about are in the aquastat, usually at the top.

WH....you probably already have this someplace in the many posts about your system, but what is the layout of the underground piping as it makes its way from the boiler to the three buildings?

titleist1,Thanks, yes our current pex system has served us for 8 yrs. To tear it all up because it is not top notch efficient would then require us to tear down our house as it too is far from efficient.When the $$ are available , then we will consider what to improve upon. Yes I should have hit the totally ignore button. BUT, frustrations with health issues & related fatigue are more than enough to deal with & then to have to deal with that very negative attack post last night was just too much.What gets me most is the " listen only to me, not the rest of the guys" attitude. I never posted any negative things that could be perceived as attacking the boiler as tho it was at fault for the fines or anything like that. AND, I talked to someone in the coal industry yesterday who was very helpful with good info. He is not associated with Superior but said the fines issue is most likely a result of them pushing their equipment to it's maximum limits as they try to catch up following a major breakdown a few weeks ago. So,onward we go,improving things at a gradual pace.

Thanks Rob.I will take a good look at doing the summer/winter switch as you suggested, sounds like a good plan.

Hopefully my crude drawing can be seen & understood.

Folly Huck

With all that linear looping under ground and the age of it - and the amount of 24/7 pumping - Your doing well to idle fire at 60 - to 80 LBS

Keep smiling - it just HAS to be better than chunk wood labor

To get back to the aquastat thing. I would not put a jumper across the TT terminals. This in effect takes the low limit out of the circuit and the boiler now has only one aquastat to run on and only one protecting it from overheating. Proper use of that control is with a thermostat connected to those terminals where the high limit comes into play only when heat is called for. I am not wild about that either because again there is only one aquastat guarding against over heating. If you want hotter water raise the low limit and leave the high limit as an extra safety.

Years ago there were three aquastats in the system and the high limit was a safety with normal operation of the burner only through the low limit. The high limit was just like the pressure control in a steam system in function and was wired line voltage with the low limit wired 24 volt connected to the TT of the burner relay. The high limit was an extra safety and would never come into play unless the low limit failed.

Then to save money design temperatures of the system were raised and to make it work this business of switching to the high limit when there was a call for heat was adopted. No longer was there an additional safety aquastat. Bad business and dangerous in my opinion. Leave those TT terminals unjumped and there is a good chance you will notice if the low limit is not working properly because of the higher temperature of the water. Time to replace the control. I have seen water temperature of 230 with a bad high limit . I just can't see the sense of running a system on one aquastat which happens with that jumper in place. Much too dangerous for me.

I don't know enough to comment on the danger aspect, but from a thermodynamics perspective I think standby heat losses - esp. in the extensive underground piping - would be minimized by keeping the water temps lower rather than higher unless/until there is a call for heat.

Mike

franco b , that is very good info you posted ,i have not had time to read thru the aquastat manual ,so you have saved me some time & I was wondering why I couldn't do it that way.I did not totally understand the concept of having an upper & lower limit & yet it only seemed to run on the lower limit,i had turned the lower limit up some,just wasn't sure if that was an OK thing to do or not,Thanks much for that info. Seems like an easier way, and as Pacowy said , no reason to have the water real hot when not needed. I could not turn down the temp in the OWB like that or the fire would have gone out,i did turn it down about 5* less than winter time.. With the EFM I should be able to lower the temp during the summer & gradually raise it as heat demand rises. STING , we ARE happy to have no wood chunk labor,thanks for the chuckle. We are happy with the whole overall system & at the same time we realize that handfed,radiant stoves in each of the buildings would be the most efficient but there are reasons previously posted as to why we are doing the current way. We will be paying the coal bill & still be happy with the big improvement this EFM from Scott has made for our situation.

Just do not let the central boiler idle fire below condensing temperature
= usually 140

I tend to error on the safe side and set 145 for hold temp

Now that written = there is nothing wrong with circulating those long loops at a lower temperature - you just need a simple temperature reducing loop to mix some of the sleepy return water with the energy bearing supply liquid. The boiler runs above condensing temps but the loops circulate at a lower temp and lower loss ---- to a point that the load will not pick up and you have gone too far

Can you say "System Balancing?"

In a perfect world you could have a ODR control on the boiler and one each supply loop and then control the load on an autonomous thermostat

but then there is the law of diminishing returns and the cold harsh reality of the daylight

additions like that might be considered more as a heating system hobby / vs economical resource management

It Depends