Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
If our community has helped you, please consider making a contribution to support this website. Thanks!
Best Of
Re: Very Cool ๐ Urinals at a Brewery
My house came with a ci pedestal sink with separate hot and cold taps. The sink was kohler if i recall. The overflow was more rust than overflow inside. I have seen separate hot and cold taps in public bathrooms occasionally but i don't remember where. i have seen only a cold tap and a plug in the hot opening where there was no dhw too. I think some of them had the spring loaded auto shutoff cartridges.
1
Re: Very Cool ๐ Urinals at a Brewery
I know this is somewhat off topic, but as I read this thread, I was reminded of these urinals that I saw at a school in Oregon.

1
Why my 85% efficient cast iron boiler is really only 78% efficient
As a homeowner/mechanical engineer who's always trying to understand how things work, it's bugged me over the years that even some heating pros disagree about whether an 85% boiler is really 85% efficient. What does it really mean when the boiler tech sticks his combustion analyzer probe in the flue, and the analyzer spits out the number 85% efficient?
I think I finally understand one source of confusion/disagreement. Heating pros, please feel free to correct me if I go wrong (and I know you will!)
For starters, I'm talking only about "combustion" efficiency. That means, how much energy gets lost up the flue vs. how much gets transmitted into the boiler mass itself and the water that passes through it.
The other efficiency measure, "thermal" efficiency, is a different subject for another time.
Back to combustion efficiency. In doing some online reading, I found this is a useful guide/reference.
https://tsi.com/getmedia/02417ee5-cccc-4dc7-80bc-f7f10924d20a/CA-basic-2980175?ext=.pdf
It seems that a major source of confusion/debate stems from the fact that when oil or natural gas burn, they produce two types of combustion products: "dry gas" (O2, CO, CO2, etc) and water vapor.
Typical combustion analyzers measure the amounts of dry gas (O2, CO, CO2) and the flue gas temperature, from which they can calculate (or use pre-programmed lookup tables to calculate) how much heat energy remains in the exhaust gas stream, as a percentage of the total available energy in the fuel. That's energy that gets lost up the chimney.
For example, in my 85% efficient oil boiler, the tech sticks his probe into the flue, and the analyzer measures the amount of O2, CO, CO2, and the flue temperature, and deduces that the exhaust gas stream still has 15% of the heat energy that was in the oil before it burned.
However, the combustion analyzer does NOT measure how much water vapor is also in the flue gas, and how much energy that vapor is carrying away. This is also called "latent heat." And the percentage of latent heat lost in water vapor varies by fuel. In heating oil, it's about 6-7%. It's higher in natural gas, because gas combustion produces more water.
So the REAL combustion efficiency of my oil boiler is 100-15-7=78%. 15% is lost to "dry gas" in the flue, and 7% is lost to "latent heat," or water vapor.
So if I want to calculate how many useful BTU's my boiler is outputting per gallon, I can multiply the BTU value of oil (138,490 BTU/gal) times 0.78 = 108,022 BTU useful heat per gallon. From my 85% (but really only 78%) efficient boiler.
Now to complicate things further, the heating industry is well aware of the fact that boilers like mine cannot condense and recover that water vapor that's costing me an extra 7% efficiency loss, because condensation would ruin my boiler. So in recognition of that fact, the heating industry gives me two DIFFERENT BTU values for heating oil: a "high heating value" (HHV) which I used in the above example, and a "low heating value" (LHV) which already has the latent heat of the water vapor subtracted from it. I found slightly different values of HHV and LHV for heating oil, but the two that I'm using here are:
HHV: 138,490 BTU/gal
LHV: 129,488 BTU/gal
Again, the HHV includes the latent heat of water vapor, and the LHV does not.
So, another way to calculate the useful heat output of my 85% (?) efficient boiler is to use the low heating value of 129,488 BTU/gal, knowing that the BTU's lost as latent heat of water vapor have already been subtracted.
So now I don't have to subtract that 7% for the water vapor. So my 85% boiler really is 85% efficient, if I use the low heating value for oil that already has the latent heat of water vapor subtracted from it.
So 0.85 x 129,488 = 110,065 BTU/gal useful heat output. (Note that this is about 2,000 BTU different from the previous calculation because I used a round number of 7% for the latent heat earlier, where the difference here between HHV and LHV is 6.5%)
So the truth is that my 85% efficient boiler is really 85% efficient ONLY if I start with the low heating value (LHV) of oil, which is about 130,000 BTU/gal.
But if I start with the high heating value (HHV) of oil, which is about 139,000 BTU/gal, then my 85% efficient boiler is really only 85-7=78% efficient.
That's my current understanding as a non-pro homeowner/engineer, and I welcome correction if I have gone astray. But this example helps me understand one of the sources of confusion about combustion efficiency and what it does (and does not) measure.
(Please also note that this does NOT get into combustion efficiency measurements for condensing boilers, which try to recover most or all of that latent heat by condensing the water vapor. Since I do not have a condensing boiler, that's a different discussion. But the principles are the same, ie that some heat is lost as "dry gas," and some (but hopefully much less, and ideally none) is lost as the latent heat of the water vapor.)
I think I finally understand one source of confusion/disagreement. Heating pros, please feel free to correct me if I go wrong (and I know you will!)
For starters, I'm talking only about "combustion" efficiency. That means, how much energy gets lost up the flue vs. how much gets transmitted into the boiler mass itself and the water that passes through it.
The other efficiency measure, "thermal" efficiency, is a different subject for another time.
Back to combustion efficiency. In doing some online reading, I found this is a useful guide/reference.
https://tsi.com/getmedia/02417ee5-cccc-4dc7-80bc-f7f10924d20a/CA-basic-2980175?ext=.pdf
It seems that a major source of confusion/debate stems from the fact that when oil or natural gas burn, they produce two types of combustion products: "dry gas" (O2, CO, CO2, etc) and water vapor.
Typical combustion analyzers measure the amounts of dry gas (O2, CO, CO2) and the flue gas temperature, from which they can calculate (or use pre-programmed lookup tables to calculate) how much heat energy remains in the exhaust gas stream, as a percentage of the total available energy in the fuel. That's energy that gets lost up the chimney.
For example, in my 85% efficient oil boiler, the tech sticks his probe into the flue, and the analyzer measures the amount of O2, CO, CO2, and the flue temperature, and deduces that the exhaust gas stream still has 15% of the heat energy that was in the oil before it burned.
However, the combustion analyzer does NOT measure how much water vapor is also in the flue gas, and how much energy that vapor is carrying away. This is also called "latent heat." And the percentage of latent heat lost in water vapor varies by fuel. In heating oil, it's about 6-7%. It's higher in natural gas, because gas combustion produces more water.
So the REAL combustion efficiency of my oil boiler is 100-15-7=78%. 15% is lost to "dry gas" in the flue, and 7% is lost to "latent heat," or water vapor.
So if I want to calculate how many useful BTU's my boiler is outputting per gallon, I can multiply the BTU value of oil (138,490 BTU/gal) times 0.78 = 108,022 BTU useful heat per gallon. From my 85% (but really only 78%) efficient boiler.
Now to complicate things further, the heating industry is well aware of the fact that boilers like mine cannot condense and recover that water vapor that's costing me an extra 7% efficiency loss, because condensation would ruin my boiler. So in recognition of that fact, the heating industry gives me two DIFFERENT BTU values for heating oil: a "high heating value" (HHV) which I used in the above example, and a "low heating value" (LHV) which already has the latent heat of the water vapor subtracted from it. I found slightly different values of HHV and LHV for heating oil, but the two that I'm using here are:
HHV: 138,490 BTU/gal
LHV: 129,488 BTU/gal
Again, the HHV includes the latent heat of water vapor, and the LHV does not.
So, another way to calculate the useful heat output of my 85% (?) efficient boiler is to use the low heating value of 129,488 BTU/gal, knowing that the BTU's lost as latent heat of water vapor have already been subtracted.
So now I don't have to subtract that 7% for the water vapor. So my 85% boiler really is 85% efficient, if I use the low heating value for oil that already has the latent heat of water vapor subtracted from it.
So 0.85 x 129,488 = 110,065 BTU/gal useful heat output. (Note that this is about 2,000 BTU different from the previous calculation because I used a round number of 7% for the latent heat earlier, where the difference here between HHV and LHV is 6.5%)
So the truth is that my 85% efficient boiler is really 85% efficient ONLY if I start with the low heating value (LHV) of oil, which is about 130,000 BTU/gal.
But if I start with the high heating value (HHV) of oil, which is about 139,000 BTU/gal, then my 85% efficient boiler is really only 85-7=78% efficient.
That's my current understanding as a non-pro homeowner/engineer, and I welcome correction if I have gone astray. But this example helps me understand one of the sources of confusion about combustion efficiency and what it does (and does not) measure.
(Please also note that this does NOT get into combustion efficiency measurements for condensing boilers, which try to recover most or all of that latent heat by condensing the water vapor. Since I do not have a condensing boiler, that's a different discussion. But the principles are the same, ie that some heat is lost as "dry gas," and some (but hopefully much less, and ideally none) is lost as the latent heat of the water vapor.)
2
Re: Very Cool ๐ Urinals at a Brewery
Some years ago I was asked if I could fix the hot water supply in the restrooms of a 1961 parochial school.
I went to school there when it was built and never noticed any problem with the hot water.
Looking in the plumbing chase it was obvious that there was never any hot water connected.
The H & C were both connected to the cold supply.
Hanging down in the chase was a 3/4" line capped and connected to the hot supply line.
So added a tempering valve and separate hot supplies to the valves.
At several school reunions I asked class mates if they noticed lack of hot water. None did.
The conclusion was that there was little hand washing going on in the 60's-70's-etc.
I went to school there when it was built and never noticed any problem with the hot water.
Looking in the plumbing chase it was obvious that there was never any hot water connected.
The H & C were both connected to the cold supply.
Hanging down in the chase was a 3/4" line capped and connected to the hot supply line.
So added a tempering valve and separate hot supplies to the valves.
At several school reunions I asked class mates if they noticed lack of hot water. None did.
The conclusion was that there was little hand washing going on in the 60's-70's-etc.
4
Re: No heat on new panel rads, monoflow system
I donโt see a new clean piece of brass in the picture between those 2 Tโs.ยmattmia2 said:Actually, look at the cut sheet, they are designed to be installed the way they are installed: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.supplyhouse.com/product_files/78810-product.pdf I'm not saying that is the optimal way to use them but that is what veiga shows.
pecmsg
1
Re: Lost wrench for the Lost Art
https://www.wamc.org/new-england-news/2017-10-02/new-public-art-sculpture-installed
The Monkey Wrench Building
Springfield, MA
https://www.thereminder.com/localnews/springfield/monkey-wrench-building-is-undiscovered-gem/
Bemis & Call Tool Factory
Springfield, MA
https://lostnewengland.com/2017/12/bemis-call-tool-factory-springfield-mass/
Moore Drop Forging Company
Springfield, MA
http://alloy-artifacts.org/moore-drop-forging.html
Lotta wrench manufacturing history there.
The Monkey Wrench Building
Springfield, MA
https://www.thereminder.com/localnews/springfield/monkey-wrench-building-is-undiscovered-gem/
Bemis & Call Tool Factory
Springfield, MA
https://lostnewengland.com/2017/12/bemis-call-tool-factory-springfield-mass/
Moore Drop Forging Company
Springfield, MA
http://alloy-artifacts.org/moore-drop-forging.html
Lotta wrench manufacturing history there.
4
Re: Reverse Engineer Manual J
@jesmed1 @PC7060You're still over-radiated for a modernized old house. Some numbers for comparison. Our circa 1920 4-unit condo building in Boston was built originally as a 4-apartment house by an elderly man who wanted his adult children to live with him in their own separate apartments. We have EDR=960 and 4800 sq ft. That's an EDR/sq ft ratio of 0.2. Our total design heat loss is 96,000 BTU/hr at zero degrees outside design temp. That's 20 BTU/hr/sq ft.
hmm. that's all interesting. Total EDR is approx 660, 2700 sq feet.
Your EDR/sq ft=660/2700=0.24. Which is even more EDR than we have, in this massively over-radiated house. So if your heat loss was the same as ours (20 BTU/sq ft), you could heat with even lower water temp than we do. Because we have large boilers, way too big for our design heat loss, they run about 45 minutes on, then 3-6 hours off depending on outdoor temperature. Since they're cold start, the water temp starts at 65 end ends up at 130-140 only at the very end of the cycle. So the average water temp during a heating cycle is like 100 degrees. For just 45 minutes out of 3-6 hours.
That's how low your radiator water temperature could be with your EDR/sq ft=0.24. But only if your heat loss is similar to ours, ie 20 BTU/hr/sq ft. Even if your heat loss is double that, say 40 BTU/sq ft, you could still heat with water temps that low, but your boiler would just run twice as long, say 90 minutes every 3-6 hours.
Here's where I think the disconnect is. When I calculated our total radiator EDR and then calculated our total design heat loss for the building, the radiator table I was using said that we'd need 140 degree water temps in our radiators, to give us about 90 BTU/hr/sq ft to heat the building. But in practice, even on a zero-degree design day, the boilers run only half the time, and the average water temp is maybe only 120.
I haven't taken the time to figure out why the predicted water temp using the radiator tables was wrong. Maybe the radiator table I used is wrong, or maybe I miscalculated our EDR. I'm reasonably certain I used the right radiator dimensions and calculated the EDR correctly. But for whatever reason, using that radiator table vastly over-predicted our required water temperature.
So I'm wondering if you have the same over-prediction problem, because by our EDR/sq ft comparison, you have more EDR/sq ft than we do, so you should be able to run similar water temps unless your heat loss/sq ft is massively more than ours.
BTW, this is the radiator table I used which over-predicts our water temp:
https://www.expressradiant.ca/pdfs/product_classic_sizing_how_to.pdf
Your real bottom line is how many BTU's you burn over a heating season, or over one coldest month in the season. Keep track of your oil or gas usage, then calculate your actual design heating load using this method:
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/replacing-a-furnace-or-boiler
That method is very accurate. Then once you know your actual heat loss number and your radiator EDR, you can estimate your required water temperature. But as I said, the radiator table above seems to over-predict our water temperature at 140, where in reality we're averaging well under 120.
Also, I recommend this article by Ron Beck. Read the section headed "Cast iron radiation," where he says that, contrary to popular belief, cast iron radiators are low-temperature systems in modernized old houses:
https://www.usboiler.net/outdoor-reset-doesnt-work.html
1
Re: Burnham Independent Near-Boiler Piping - Seeking Advice
Your main starts here (line I added in red, not the circle)

And it ends here (red)

You do not measure any of the pipes running up to radiators, just the large diameter pipe that runs around the basement.
I'd say you need a lot more main venting. That vent you have is fine if your main was less than 10', but I doubt your main is that short.
I'd still be curious how well the boiler was sized. We can guide you if you wanted to do the measurements, it's really not hard.

And it ends here (red)

You do not measure any of the pipes running up to radiators, just the large diameter pipe that runs around the basement.
I'd say you need a lot more main venting. That vent you have is fine if your main was less than 10', but I doubt your main is that short.
I'd still be curious how well the boiler was sized. We can guide you if you wanted to do the measurements, it's really not hard.
1
Re: Burnham Independent Near-Boiler Piping - Seeking Advice
@Mad Dog_2 , @Steamhead : My best estimate is that 99 feet of main piping.
Keep me honest here, please: I measured the insulated main piping you can see in my photos and the additional piping (some of which is not insulated) that leads to each radiator.
The pipe sizes vary, having a hard time getting an estimate because of the insulation. Is there a specific location(s) where it'd be most helpful to know the pipe size? If so, I can remove the insulation. Just don't want to start tearing it down on a whim.
Edit: See below after KC_Jone's post.
Keep me honest here, please: I measured the insulated main piping you can see in my photos and the additional piping (some of which is not insulated) that leads to each radiator.
The pipe sizes vary, having a hard time getting an estimate because of the insulation. Is there a specific location(s) where it'd be most helpful to know the pipe size? If so, I can remove the insulation. Just don't want to start tearing it down on a whim.
Edit: See below after KC_Jone's post.
1