Please don't feel that I am picking things apart here Greg
I just found a break while waiting for an update and would like to respond to a couple points - yet I look at my response and it appears "snippy" - I hate that but its a simple way to address a couple of points. So look at me - I am trying to be simple - don't hate me now for it..
LsFarm wrote:Hi Sting,Good morning.
I don't think you have ever been 'flamed' about your ideas.. you have to understand that there are many ways to accomplish a job, to get a boiler to operate satisfactorly.
OK Flamed is a harsh description of views that have differed from some things I have made lame attempts to describe. Yet if we keep an open mind - well I see Scott ( a used to be "overheater" ) is coming into the light!!!! That makes me smile
when I write stuff about controls that are less than simple at first glance let this float through your mind:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz3qDu0WemM
When I have a REALLY bad day I watch an unrated version
FREE YOUR MIND AND USE IT WHILE ITS OPEN...
LsFarm wrote:The problem you describe with big heavy steam radiators converted to hot water, or big oversize water radiators, can be an issue in warmer fall and spring weather, but what you advocate to cure the overheating will create under heating during the cold of winter. So owner/operator interaction with the heating system and theory of operation is required.
mild weather overheating will always be a problem if the boiler is set to produce to its full potential all season - but the mechanic is less likely to be called for this than when the house is cold on a Saturday night in the dead of winter.
LsFarm wrote:I think you are VERY interactive with your heat systems,, like to be innovative, and have state-of-the-art controls,, and are easily able to grasp the 'big picture' of the controls, water flow, etc... But many, [I'd say most] people like simple, reliable, set it once and forget it systems.. like an oil or gas system.. They want it that way, their spouses want it that way, and the appliance suppliers want their customers to not have to 'fuss with' the system... The solid fuel business is in constant competition with oil and gas for convienence and 'one touch' operation.. And the suppliers/installers don't want constant phone calls about 'what it's doing'.
My system ---- you would laugh -- its a pile of junk - from the solid fuel boiler to the pumps the pipe and the controls - its all cast off from jobs that I salved for the scrap. The only pieces I bought new was the Draft Inducer (because I hate to clean chimneys tall enough to bring me that close to God!) and some fittings that I lacked. And except of the fuel fill and ash removal - its "no fuss" but the fuel is enough of an issue that should the emergency room plot not to release me for a few days - there are two well marked switches to throw and one valve to twist and its back to "NO FUSS" ng operation.
LsFarm wrote: Now, you advocate a low temperature, constant circulation system for spring/fall,, but in some other threads,, you advocate only high temps for a boiler.. are you adding an expensive mixing valve to create this low temp water from a hot boiler?? or are you saying to lower your boiler temps??
I believe you are referring to my stern advice to never operate a boiler below 140 - as the guy called in with the torch to make way for the new equipment --- when the old stuff rots before its life cycle should have expired -- I think I can stand on that soap box.
LsFarm wrote: The modern 'cartridge pump' hadn't been invented yet. And the lower temps caused problems with the NG boiler, it had condensation problems because NG makes plenty of water when it burns..
Free your mind --- we now have pumps that don't suck the power meter off the wall - P/S loop piping allow you to run the boiler above the condensing threshold and circulate very low energy liquid from a manual mix valve that cost only a couple bucks to install -
LsFarm wrote:But an anticipator in the thermostat was still needed to prevent overshooting of target temperature. And once adjusted, it worked well, but I sure wouldn't want to try to explain how/why/when/ and what to monitor to make that system work for someone else.. I'd recommend a simpler system, more reliable, fewer headaches.
Simple only means more interaction to achieve best most efficient most economical control -
is that really simpler ???? Yes if your fuel is pennies a pound. Why bother! Crank it up and pour me another!
At some point you decide you don't want to control 14 things twice a day to make "best power"
Manual control by a human - thats how steam locos pulled long lines of cars - the engineer was the "ECM" - today the engineer in a train of similar load is a "cab driver" Manual control - thats how the Baltimore's heated mansions with hot water. Full time staff.
simple - I make some things simple by technology and its my choice to leave some things to the human touch...Some have said it would be impossible to debug a multi pump control on a Saturday night when the house goes cold in the dead of winter.. I might ask how different would it be if that control were manual? You find the problem and if piped for contingency - you "valve over" and wait for Monday.