Dan, It's Time To Look To The Future

mdewolfe_2

I for one am in complete agreement with the topic of this thread "look toward the future". I for one am looking forward to the future and on May 5th I plan on attending Dans steam heat night school. In my book Dan gets "steam heating mensch" status. Hope to see you there.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Perry_5

The future for new construction

Above I discussed that the most effective use of our resouces - the most "Green" thing to do was to maintain the existing systems.

I did not really much discuss new construction.

So lets look at the future for new construction:

If you are building a house, or a small commercial or a few unit apartment building then you can look at the options: Good solar layout, space for geothermal, hydronics, forced Air systems, etc. You can also build a highly insulated building with minimal heating/cooling needs and possibly even incorporate realistic wind power.

In this niche there is indeed quite the possibilities for alternate "future" technologies as long as the lot has the resources and the systems are properly designed and installed. However, in many cases there will be limitations on what your choices are - not to mention budget limitations on implementing what is realistically possible for the site.

It should be mentioned that steam heat could be built at this level - but it tends to be expensive to construct compared to other options, and I doubt it would ever be constructed as a new system for this level of buildings (unless some steam purest is willing to spend the money just because).

I propose that if you were looking for the most efficient overall fuel supplied heating system - from a total energy inputed to the boiler and electricity to pumps and controls - I suspect that a low pressure modulating steam boiler and radiator system would be very hard to beat. By low pressure I am actually talking about a system that operates below atmospheric pressure - and even adjust its pressure based on outdoor temperature. You can realistically have 110 F to 180 F steam depending on demand. Other than a vacuum pump and some controls this would be a very simple system. Not cheap to construct though.

From a practical standpoint. I suspect that the cheapest long term durable and most efficient system to build for home or small commercial/small apartment would be a hydronic single pipe mono-T flow system, or a two pipe system (with TRVs), using either baseboard or wall panel radiators. Wall panels should be able to pull of hydronic cooling without many of the mold issues as well (You may still need a humidity control system for the house - perhaps as part of the air exchange unit a new house would require).


But there is another build scenario - which involves densely packed housing and business. Classically this is a larger industrial building or a modest to large apartment building. It might be one of the recent dense packed housing communities being developed (why do we have to drive miles and mow fields of grass).

If you study where most of the population in the US lives. Most of it lives in dense pack housing. It's cheaper to build on a per unit basis because it uses far less resources per unit. Everyone living in their own house and driving miles for errands is not green at all.

In this element: Large industrial buildings and dense packed housing steam heat becomes king. There is not enough area for any meaningful solar or geothermal. Pumping cost in both energy and maintenance quickly rule out hydronic heating systems if they are looked at from a long term perspective. Steam heat becomes the overall least expensive to build and operate. On the smaller projects the steam systems may be similar to old style housing systems which operate at less than a few PSI. However, the larger projects probably have steam operating at pressures up to 50 PSI for heating (and higher than that if the steam can be used for other industrial processes).

Cooling is often accomplished by chilled water systems (where the pumping cost and maintenance are the cheapest way to go).

So, do not discount steam heat as a future. If we go more green as a nation - then we are likely to build more dense pack housing or dense pack communities. Steam heat is likely the natural fuel based heating system for these applications as it is the most green way to go.

Most of the population already lives in dense pack housing - and that is likely to continue.

So I am curious as to why "Future" thinks that steam is dead?

Mark Custis

Perry

keep up the good work.

Nice essay.

frankiewrench

WHAT I DO........................

............in NYC is maintain those old beautiful steam systems by keeping the boilers running or replace 'em. In that type of business ya gotta know the system or find something else to put food on the table. In this forum we share knowledge to improve ourselves and therefore stay able to give our customers the service they need. There are too many homes and businesses out there that require a knowledge service company. When me and my generation are gone (the baby boomers) and those heating and plumbing mechanics that have been keeping customers happy for so long are no longer around, who, may I ask is going to provided this valuable service? Unless the young'ins ared taught they will guess. And you know how dangerous a little bit of knowledge can be. These pages and the steam schools (along with the rest of 'em)that Good Ole Dan provides is a major contribution to our trade. The new trends, Mod-Con, Geo, etc. are all necessary for the newer buildings, but we cannot let steam go by the way side, all but forgotten. When I broke into this trade, we were doing steam boiler jobs. And guess what?? Forty years latter those structures still stand and still need steam, and I'm still doing steam boilers.

V8toilet

History

"And very little of this would probably have happened without Dan Holohan. This is proof that one person can make a huge difference. We are forever in his debt."

Amen to that!

If I met Dan in person I would get on my knees and thank him over and over again for educating me on how to make my once fuel wasting, leaking, and unbalanced system a very efficient and unbelievably comfortable (and quiet) heating system. I have gained 51% total savings on my heating bill due to the improvements I made to my steam heat that I learned from Dan's books and this website. This is for a 1500 sq ft home in Massachusetts where there are still thousands of homes still heated by steam heat.

Can steam heat be efficient? YOU BET IT CAN!

Mad Dog_2

and what do we tell the millions of folks....just in NYS

who still have viable steam systems in their homes??? Rip it out now just to jump on the green bandwagon? Who's payin for that? Obama? We'll see about that. As much as I love The Steam and try to preserve it whenever possible, I will not rec'd keeping it when one guts a house or is adding on a multi-level extension...it just doesn't make sense. As for Dan...Thank GOD he still teached the steam class...what about all the young guys coming in??? where will they learn it? Like it or not...we will still have many viable steam systems even 20-30 years from now.....everybody doesn't have the $$$ to just rip it out and go hi-tech. Say what ever you want about me, but I have never posted anonymously....that's a cop out. This IS still America...you can Speak your mind without fear of retribution. Assert it NOW or lose it forever. I have learned MUCH about the Modernity of Hydronics through Dan's books like Basic Radiant, P/S made easy, and the rest. Like Dano, I believe I honor the past and embrace the future...not only in words but deeds. You're off base, Man. Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mad Dog_2

Great Point John

Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mad Dog_2

What are you afraid of????????

For the life of me...I can't understand when men don't wanna stand up. I don't care if some disagree with me or not...there is a certain satisfaction and comfort and being 100% real.and speaking one's mind..FDR (not my favorite prez or anything but a strong man) Nothing to fear but fear itself! Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

As Always

Follow the money. Steam heating isn't considered edgy and high tech. Mod-Cons presume efficiency, last for 5 years and sell. :-) It's a salesman's world.

I also find it ironic just a few years ago valves were bad and pumps hanging from every piece of pipe in site was considered good.

Nothing has ever changed, the industry just stop following sound design principles....

Steamhead (in transit)

Mr. TerryT

You are a Philosopher-King of Steam. Well said, my liege.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

tommyoil

My preferences aside....

I'm still not the one hiding like a scared child behind some bogus name. And it doesn't change the fact that as a business "owner" (thats a laugh) you're sitting in a dungeon ,glued to a computer, posting idiotic comments with zero value or credibility...sort of like the other aspects of your sorry existence... zero value and even less credibility (your family must be proud). The fact that you have time for this nonsense at 3:00 in the afternoon pretty much sums up how successful YOUR alleged business is. It probably just aggravates the s**t out of you that you cant hold a candle to one of the greatest and most progressive minds in the industry. Again, success spawns jealousy and resentment and you are the poster boy for that statement. So....now your here in a lame **** attempt to do what??? Diminish this sight somehow? Its not going to work. The people here see through your bulls**t from a mile away. Keep up the great and informative posts though. After all... you are a poster boy so live up to your name and at least do ONE thing right. Some psychiatric help and an AA meeting MIGHT help a sorry **** like you but I wouldn't hold out any hope. Is the nipple off the gin bottle yet?

[Deleted User]

Steamhead,

Your suggestion that only anecdotal "evidence" exists to support the claims of steam's inherent inferiority - or data resulting in lopsided new-water vs, ancient-steamers bias - is fraught with mis-information.

The principals of latent heat, laws of conservation of energy, and thermodynamics are not black magic and witchcraft, they are scientific and the only acceptable methods to make the comparisons you suggest have never been done.

They have been known for well over 100 years, laid out in any 11th grade high school physics book you find and common knowledge at the most rudimentary levels. For you to deny their existence - or an understanding of these well known thermodynamic principals, diminishes your standing as a self-proclaimed steam expert, relegating you to the world of quackery.

To ask someone to cite something that is common knowledge does not bolster your position. Rather it certifies your ignorance.

Allow me to turn the tables. Show us one document that supports your notion that steam is anywhere near as efficient as hot water!

As an aside, this is not a debate as to whether a structure should be "converted" from steam to water - which is based on cost to do so - usually far too expensive to even ponder - not the inherent efficiency of the ultimate design.

ttekushan_3

Oh dear. You don't mind Steamhead, do you?

Someone is confusing thermal efficiency of a 1865 steam locomotive engine with heat distribution again! So distribution of heat is the same as work produced by that heat. I see. Try again.

Better tell the world's utilities to drop that bad old steam engine! Oh wait. They did. Okay: Better tell the world's utilities to drop that bad old steam turbine! Oh wait. There's nothing more efficient in thermal efficiency than a steam turbine. So hundreds of thousand engineers say. But what do they know. I'm sure they know so little as to drop the name "thermodynamics" and "conservation of energy" at parties to conceal their total ignorance.

It gets worse. Those ignorant engineers have determined that the most efficient utilization of solar energy is via trough collectors to generate high pressure steam to run steam turbines! What a bunch of bozos. If only they heard of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. They must have dropped out of school in 11th grade.

-Terry

JohnNY

Hey, Robert.

That building is practically in my backyard.

Do you have access to the mechanical room?

I'd love to take a tour.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

don_185

In that

In that why I love me some maddog.You're so right my brother.

I like judge Joe Brown too.He always protecting womanhood and promoting manhood.LOL.

To be the man...you have to act like a man.

Carry on.

Mark Eatherton

Dear Legend of the Pest...

If you want to learn about the future, attend a John Siegenthaler presentation. John addresses just about everything except Hydrogen Fuel Cells, and it wouldn't take much for him to adapt to that technology. I know John personally, and have attended many of his seminars, and I mean nothing derogatory, but John is not an entertainer. Very much worth the time and money, but Dan is VERY entertaining. John doesn't try to be entertaining. Dan does.

As for steam, it was KING at one point in time, and like it or not, it's going to be around for a long, LONG time to come. You can't just wave your magic wand (LED flashlight) over a one pipe steam system and have it grow enough piping to allow it to be converted to a hydronic heating system. Besides, if it were properly sized, there will not be enough radiation to make it work with lower water temperatures any way.

So, if you want to learn about the future, and be educated, go with Siggy. If you want to be entertained, educated and taught about the rich history we have to deal with in the BEAUTIFUL "SYSTEMS", attend a Holohan steam seminar.

Dan is quite comfortable doing what it is that he does.

ME

Perry_5

Mike & TerryT - You're both Wrong

As a Mechanical Engineer (the kind that studies and implements thermal design); and also one who has spent much of his adult life working with energy systems (steam & Hot water): I can say you are both wrong in your points.

First you have to define the application: Burning fuel to heat something up (a house). This is not burning fuel to produce mechanical work or generate electricity (and you cannot compare these two task).

There is no inherent efficiency of using hot water over steam for general heating if you are using a non-condensing boiler (a condensing boiler does have an efficiency gain if it can be effectively utilized). The theoretical differences between low pressure steam and unpressurized hot water are within the realm of pumping and system configuration losses.

Steamhead is correct that you would need a best designed and constructed steam and a best designed and constructed hot water system for an apples to apples test (and likely several different system and sizes). I will take him at his word that he is unaware of such a study.

I personally find it very plausible that a steam system would in fact be more energy efficient overall than a hydronic system. This is especially true of in floor radiant heating with its high head pumping cost, energy use and pressure drop from multiple control and mixing valves, etc.

As far as a steam - steam turbine being the most efficient way to produce mechanical or electric power by burning fuel. That too is wrong.

Of the equipment and systems that can currently be built:

A fuel cell is the most efficient way to produce electricity - but it requires an ultra-clean fuel which is normally cost prohibitive.

A gas turbine (combustion turbine - Jet engine) based plant is in the range of 50% efficient. It requires a fairly clean fuel. Literally hundreds of $ Millions have been spent tying to develop a coal fired gas turbine that would be long term durable. No success to date. Thus, these are currently only used with premium priced fuels (natural gas and highly refined petroleum).

There is development work on a nuclear gas turbine (the pebble bed reactor, and others); and I believe these will eventually be developed. But it is far from proven that it will work long term (test plants have been built).

Steam cycle plant (boil water - run steam though turbines) are in the Mid 30's for efficiency. But, they can handle dirty fuels, can be nuclear powered, and are highly reliable and durable - even if somewhat expensive to build. Being able to handle dirty fuels (coal, crude and residual oil) and being able to utilize a nuclear reactor are the reasons these are built - despite their current low efficiencies compared to other options. Thus, the next hundred or so major power plants (not to mention a thousand or so smaller commercial plants) will be based on the steam cycle.

I for one am looking for the day that major power plants will not be steam cycle based. It will be a huge jump forward in efficiency. We just don't know how to do this from a technical standpoint yet beyond short lived research plants (and they all have been short lived).

Perry

Tony_23

Perry

You keep stating that radiant is a high head application. That's simply not true, when designed properly. My radiant panels are designed with a usual head of 6-7 ft. EASILY within a 007's curve. Some get a 006. Never more than a 008. I also strive to design for one water temp throughout the system. It's very doable. Using a mod/con, plates where applicable, and none where not needed, keeps the system simpler to install, maintain, and operate.

A monoflow system is a good example of unnecessary head to achieve balanced water temps. They work well, but a parallel system works as well, if not better, with more control of individual emitters at sometimes greatly reduced head.

My 2 cents.

Perry_5

Tony:

Note that I specifically claim in the above post that it was radiant is high head. By radiant I have meant in floor heating - which I admit might not be technically correct (but what is normally sold by people claiming to sell radiant). If you follow my other post you will see me state that mono-flow T and 2 pipe systems are (generally) low head - and more efficient than radiant.

One problem with most condensing boilers is that they are also have higher head loss than past boilers (the exception being the TT Prestige).

I readily concede that an old fashion cast iron radiator/baseboard or radiant wall panel system parred with the right boiler is a low head system and highly efficient. But, that still leaves a question of the pumping losses. Steam heat generally needs no pumping. Which is more efficient?

It is really interesting to note that when I replaced my boiler that my electric bills jumped $10-$20 per month over the last boiler which only ran a B&G Series 100 pump intermittently on call for heat (I have a mono-flow T system with cast iron baseboard). Now I run a Taco 007 24/7 + run the Vitodens 200. The change in electric usage was noted immediately.

Perry

Unknown

Steamhead has a valid point

You can rant all you want about principals of latent heat , conservation of energy , thermodynamics , blah blah blah ...........

Try selling a top of the line system to a homeowner , armed with just that technical info . Mike , you know you'll get the deer in the headlights look from anyone you try to upsell a system to . Going about it that way .

What people want to know is ACTUAL fuel use savings , not formulas and ratios and a need for a degree in advanced calculus to decipher your sales technique . How do YOU prove to your customers that this expensive , total rehab of their system will save them any significant amount of fuel ? On this website I often read 30 to 40% fuel use savings when going from and ancient steam system to a top of the line water system . Funny thing is we get those same numbers when upgrading an old steamer to a new one . That's without the necessity to install a new heat source in every room . I wonder how much more fuel can be saved by swapping out the oversized rads and mains for properly sized ones , since most homes have been weatherized .

Tony_23

Yeah

I'm talking about radiant being in-floor. By "panel" I mean a floor, ceiling or wall. I stand by my statements about head in radiant systems. Proper design is the key.

Monoflow tees add quite a bit of head. Certainly more than a parallel system.

A 007 draws .74 amps, a 100 series 2.4 amps. I would bet there's more to your increased electrical costs than a lone 007 constantly running. Furthermore, your fuel usage savings should negate the electrical increase, by far. It's the system, not individual components that make the difference.

ttekushan_3

Perry, whats your point, really?

You made my point for me that heat distribution has nothing to do with heat engines. I think this is what I said. I merely thought it strange to assume steamhead knows nothing of thermodynamics, etc. since he was speaking of comparative heating media. A rudimentary class in physics doesn't provide all the answers!

Your last point about steam heating being equivalently efficient is mentioned in my first post. Its been sort of a theme for me here for years. My own real world work in the field has garnered the kind of results that support the case.

With regard to electrical generation, I don't recall mentioning specific efficiencies but comparative ones. Are you talking steam generation efficiency, turbine efficiency, power generator efficiency, or the efficiency of the whole system? Are Brayton cycle turbines the answer? My point is that it certainly appears at this time steam power is the best we've got that can utilize the fuels we have. Its near universiality seems to give that point some credibility. I have to assume also that non-dirty fuels have some sort of costs associated with their utilization.

I am truly interested in what the future holds with regard to other generation techniques which have a good chance of working reliably and efficiently and when we can expect to see them. Obviously this is a totally different topic of discussion than using steam as a space heating medium.

So I still can't figure out where we disagree. My post went to a ludicrous extreme merely to point out the fallacy of high school physics students being able to definitively answer the question of comparative space heating media efficiencies and cost of operation.

BTW, I'm one of those who takes the time to read your thoughtful posts. They've always been worth my time. Likewise, please take time to see my point.

-Terry

Oy. Now I'm off to a sunday evening emergency service on a 1 year old high tech HW boiler. This should be interesting.

Steamhead (in transit)

Mike, I'm going

by what I've seen so far. You may have noticed that when Gordo or I, among many others, post fuel-savings percentages resulting from the work we do, we have the numbers to back them up. To do so without the numbers would be a disservice to everyone involved here.

You will notice that I have never said hot-water is necessarily LESS efficient than steam. I don't have the numbers to back that up. By the same token, no one has the numbers to back up their assertion that steam is less efficient than hot-water.

My own house has a converted gravity hot-water system- I doubt I'd rip it out even if we could show that steam was slightly more efficient. It wouldn't make sense to do this when you consider how much energy is needed to manufacture and install the new equipment. And it has come in real handy as a test-bed........

I have, however, seen several well-done studies that claim an average loss of 20% in the typical scorched-air duct system. Most people aren't aware of this, since air leaking from ducts is not nearly as obvious as water or steam leaking from pipes. Also, scorched-air can pressurize and depressurize rooms which would result in more infiltration. Try these links:

http://oikos.com/esb/28/duct_losses.html

http://oikos.com/esb/44/forcedair.html

http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/93/931114.html

http://forums.invision.net/Thread.cfm?CFApp=2&Thread_ID=25079&mc=7

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

[Deleted User]

Perry?

Perry's penchant for verbosity neither clarifies nor adds to the debate raised by Steamhead's postulation which states - there is no proof that steam heating systems are inherently less efficient than water based heating systems.

Perry's legendary tomes aside. Steam turbines, steam locomotives, and Old Faithful at Yellowstone are not the issue.

Steamhead's notion is incorrect, misleading and based purely on wishful thinking.

Steam heating is inherently inefficient as compared to water based heating.

[Deleted User]

Tony,

You are correct.

Perry is quick to note his academic pedigree, but lacks fundamental awareness of the topic at hand - classic degreed engineer shortcoming.

Many radiant panels are designed in a modified two-pipe, reverse-return form and have heads well below 10 feet, while running well over 10,000 feet of tube.

Stick that in you smoke and pipe it!

[Deleted User]

You wrote:

"no one has the numbers to back up their assertion that steam is less efficient than hot-water."

Simply because you did not understand or pay attention in your 11th grade physics class or the accompanying text book, does not allow you to suggest they didn't - or don't now - exist.

Your inability to comprehend is the issue - not whether the information exists.

And in case you missed this one as well, the earth is also known to be round.

Perry_5

I'd like you to offer any proof of your statement

"Steam heating is inherently inefficient as compared to water based heating."

Please provide me any form of proof of this statement.
From a theoretical standpoint as I know it the thermodynamic efficiency difference between 212 F and 100 F heating systems is so very tiny that it really is not worth considering on a large scale - and you would have to consider the electricity required for all controls and pumping as well (which seems to me could easily overwhelm any thermodynamic efficiency). Also, you can have 100 F steam if you want too, which would involve an energy eating vacuum pump.

Now you may have a point from a practical standpoint. I concede that it is cheaper to build a more efficient water based system that it is to build a steam system - much less one designed for the best efficiencies - at least for a small building.

Since you are claiming inherent inefficiency I am sure that you can cite the heat transfer science and physics that backs that up. What have I missed - or have forgotten - or was never taught?

Perry

Perry_5

Perhaps you are right - Perhaps not.

But, I note that it seems that all the pumps commonly specified for use on tube based radiant systems all have much higher head pressure capabilities than older monoflow-T or two pipe systems with cast iron radiators.

If radiant is so low pressure why in the world was all of those higher pressure pumps designed? Not only that - they are not moving that much water for the pressures involved. Heck, you can hardly even buy a pump that works right on a monoflow-T system from some manufactures as they cannot produce the flow needed at the low operating pressures of the system.

Total power consumption is a function of head and flow; not just head.

It'd be real interesting to put power meters (kill a watt, or similar) and compare the actual pump power required for a radiant system and a cast iron radiator system.

Note that the comparison above on how the B&G series 100 pump was rated to use more power than the Taco 007 only tells part of the story. Pumps actually can operate at less power than their rated power - and in fact often do. Those rated powers are the power requirements for the worst efficiency point on the pump curve. Also, if I operated the Series 100 for 10 or 15 minutes an hour (if even that as sometimes the old boiler only fired a couple times every 8 hours) but the Taco 100 24 hours a day every day... It makes a difference. Again - the real comparison could not really be told without a kill-a-watt meter on the pumps.

I do admit that my gas savings is indeed larger than my electrical bill. But I've got to wonder about all of those radiant systems I see with lots of pumps, solenoid valves, mixing valves, etc. I see a lot of electrical usage. How does that affect total system efficiency.

Perry

Perry_5

Terry - I may have misunderstood your point

I thought you were trying to compare the efficiency of heating to the efficiency of doing work.

The efficiencies related to doing work or power generation were for the entire system. A Carnot steam cycle power plant is only going to be in the mid 30's. Yes the turbine is highly efficient - and so is the generator; but all the pumping and other cost of operation are significant (you could run a small to medium sized city off of the "Auxiliary" Power required to run a full sized power plant). When you look at energy in compared to energy out - you are in the range of the mid 30's on overall efficiency. Fuel source really does not matter.

The Brayton cycle (gas turbine) is likely the future of major power generation; but we are still probably at least 25 years away from realistic commercial sized applications for non-premium fuels. A lot of $ is being spent on R&D in this area for both waste/dirty oil, coal, and nuclear.

There is indeed a premium cost for the premium fuels used in current gas turbines (oil and natural gas). Cheap to build with very high fuel cost. That is why coal & nuclear steam cycle plants produce the lowest electrical power in the world - despite their inherent inefficiency compared to the Brayton cycle.

This premium also affect fuel cells. You have to purify natural gas for it to be usable in fuel cells at this point.

I hope your emergent boiler job went OK.

Have a great day,

Perry

Timco

Mike,

Care to compare steam to hot water in a 50+ unit building? How about the install cost, or the maintenance costs? How about the efficiency then? HW may work out better in a house, but what about large scale?

Tim

Tony_23

Perry

Reread my post about design of radiant systems. Low head is a result of design. Not all radiant is high head, nor does it have to be. Mfg's make high head circs to compensate for poor piping designs.

As far as your 100 series to 007 comparison, it's not apples to apples. Cycle your 007 like your 100 was and see the difference in consumption. The 100's max head is about 10ft, the 007's 12ft. Difference being about 8 gpm. Get down around 7 ft and the 007 moves 7 gpm and the consumption drops off as compared to max head. Obviously, you could've run your old 100 Series continuously and achieved the same results comfort-wise. You would've also used considerably more power than a 007 under the same circumstances.

Any idea what the head is on your monoflow system ? Those tees are pretty restrictive.

Wayne_29

Dan, you should thank \"anonymous\"

Free advertising for Steam School full of testimonials! You should start booking more of them today!

It will be a fun way to look at the past and how it doesn't relate to the future! Bring your typewriters to take notes, check the ribbon first, we don't have spares

Vib

Perry_5

Head Estimate

I estimate it in the 6 - 7 Ft range. Someday I may put a pressure gauge on the system and figure it out.

If this was a 2 pipe system I would estimate the head to be only a couple Ft (max) based on the pressure drop charts for currently produced cast iron baseboard.

I do not think you can get as low a head with a tube in floor (or wall) radiant system as you can get with a baseboard or wall panel radiator system.

Perry

Mad Dog_2

Stagnant????? The money made on steam work has helped our

bank account "grow" not stagnate. There is still too much steam out there to dismiss or bypass it. Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Wayne_29

Mad Dog this is not an indictment steam systems

Mad Dog you are loved and so is your work. You are the master! This was never an indictment of steam systems. No where did he say you should rip out steam and put up solar as misinterpreted. This looked like a test to see Wallie responses would be if Dan was questioned about future technology (which he proved he doesn't embrace)

Siggy is Nostradamus here, he has been touting ECM pumps for several years not Hartford Loops and the art of skimming.

I'll bet all you Steam Heads all know steam systems inside and out. You go to these meetings to meet Dan first, school second. And there's nothing wrong with that. I have met Dan several times and he is a beautiful man full of passion.

I am sure all his steam night schools will be sold out this year and this sure has helped. He should put up a thank you and a $5.00 off "Pumping Away" coupon. Now I can sit back and learn more about steam than I ever did.

It's up to 75+ posts and may never go away because of Perry's novelettes. Like I said, he makes Connie look like an amateur. The Wall used to have very lively debates, this reminds me of several years ago and I'm digging it.

Mike & Perry, please keep it up, it's like the old days

Steamhead (in transit)

Au contraire

typewriter ribbons are still available online. Find out what models people will bring, and order them!

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Wayne_29

Steamhead

If you need a class on steam. maybe you should change your name

michael_34

well said Singh

We wouldn't need saving the planet if all of us would stop by not needed gadgets in our homes that waste energy. Just turning a damn light off in a room your not in and getting rid of Phantom loads.
The most important part in heating a home in my less than humble opion is to reduce it's heat load. Fill those walls, seal those windows batten down the hatches.
All new constructed homes should be built passive solar. It should be a mandate. These freaking Mc Mansions that face the road for all to see or facing the mountain prairie is B.S. Face 'em south.
I've lived all over this country and I have lived with all types of heat. I have to say my favorites are wood and steam. There is nothing like a winter morning and you get out of the shower and your towel is hanging over a steam radiator. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh that is nice!!!!! And wood warms you to the bone.
This unanimous Writer that has stirred us all in a frenzy should stop being a wus and come out play!
Being a solar guy, I have the right to say Dan has more and definitely backed solar and renewable energy. Every Thursday I find something in his newsletter about renewables. Renewables are not the only answer! They are only part of the equation. Proper construction is first (for new homes) and whatever you can do to lower the heat load in older homes.

ttekushan_3

I like mine

two-color. Black and red. Oh--and I prefer manual typewriter so I can "emote" with the amount of pressure. If this keyboard were a typewriter some words would punch right through the paper!

Of course, since I work primarily in steam, I use a dial phone, wear spats, churn my own butter. My music selection has been limited since they stopped making phonograph cylinders and I guess I won't be having to re-tube by DuMont TV since broadcasts are going digital.

-Terry

FYI: For any ninny who took this seriously, I haven't used the typewriter in months.

*snicker*